Essay/Term paper: Laws of war

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Law

Laws of War



 



The term "laws of war" refers to the rules governing the actual



conduct of armed conflict. This idea that there actually exists rules that



govern war is a difficult concept to understand. The simple act of war in



and of itself seems to be in violation of an almost universal law



prohibiting one human being from killing another. But during times of war



murder of the enemy is allowed, which leads one to the question, "if murder



is permissible then what possible "laws of war" could there be?" The



answer to this question can be found in the Charter established at the



International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo:



 



Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination,



enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any



civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on



political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection



with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in



violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders,



organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation



or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing



crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution



of such plan.1



 



The above excerpt comes form the Charter of the Tribunal Article 6 section



C, which makes it quite clear that in general the "laws of war" are there



to protect innocent civilians before and during war.



 



It seems to be a fair idea to have such rules governing armed conflict



in order to protect the civilians in the general location of such a



conflict. But, when the conflict is over, and if war crimes have been



committed, how then are criminals of war brought to justice? The



International Military Tribunals held after World War II in Nuremberg on 20



November 1945 and in Tokyo on 3 May 1946 are excellent examples of how such



crimes of war are dealt with. (Roberts and Guelff 153-54) But, rather than



elaborate on exact details of the Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo a more



important matter must be dealt with. What happens when alleged criminals of



war are unable to be apprehended and justly tried? Are they forgotten



about, or are they sought after such as other criminals are in order to



serve justice? What happens if these alleged violators are found residing



somewhere other than where their pursuers want to bring them to justice?



How does one go about legally obtaining the custody of one such suspect?



Some of the answers to these questions can be found in an analysis of how



Israel went about obtaining the custody of individuals that it thought to



be guilty of Nazi War Crimes. Not only will one find some of the answers



to the previously stated questions, but also one will gain an understanding



of one facet of international law and how it works.



 



Two cases in specific will be dealt with here. First, the extradition



of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina, and second, the extradition of John



Demjanjuk from the United States of America. These cases demonstrate two



very different ways that Israel went about obtaining the custody of these



alleged criminals. The cases also expose the intricacy of International



Law in matters of extradition. But, before we begin to examine each of



these cases we must first establish Israel's right to judicial processing



of alleged Nazi war criminals.



 



To understand the complications involved in Israel placing suspected



Nazi war criminals on trial, lets review the history of Israel's situation.



During World War II the Nazis were persecuting Jews in their concentration



camps. At this time the state of Israel did not exist. The ending of the



war meant the ending of the persecution, and when the other countries



discovered what the Nazis had done Military Tribunals quickly followed.



Some of the accused war criminals were tried and sentenced, but others



managed to escape judgement and thus became fugitives running from



international law. Israel became a state, and thus, some of the Jews that



survived the concentration camps moved to the state largely populated by



people of Jewish ancestry. Israel felt a moral commitment because of its



large Jewish population and set about searching for the fugitive Nazi war



criminals.



 



The situation just described is only a basic overview of what



happened. The state of Israel views itself as the nation with the greatest



moral jurisdiction for the trial of Nazi war criminals, and other states



around the Globe agree with Israel's claim. (Lubet and Reed 1) Former



Israeli Attorney General Gideon Hausner was interested in confirming Israel



as the place for bringing to justice all those suspected of genocide of



Jews. Hausner sought to confirm Israel's status by proposing to the United



States that they extradite Bishop Valerian Trifa to Israel for trial as a



war criminal. Israel was reluctant to support Hausner's proposal, which



resulted in delaying the extradition process and thus gave Trifa the time



needed to find a country willing to give him residency. Portugal granted



Trifa residency and thus Hausner's proposal was in vain.



 



Israel, sometime after losing their opportunity of obtaining Trifa,



decided that Hausner's idea of establishing Israel as the place to bring



Nazi war criminals to trial was a good one, which lead them to seek the



extradition of John Demjanjuk from the United States. The Wall Street



Journal reported:



 



Israel's request for the extradition of a suspected Nazi war criminal



living in the U.S. . . appears to be a test case that could determine



whether Israel pursues other suspects . . . The decision to seek the



extradition of Mr. Demjanjuk follows months of negotiations between U.S.



and Israel officials about specific cases and the broader question of



whether Israel wanted to go through with extraditions requests . . . Gideon



Hausner, who prosecuted Eichmann, said Israel's decision to ask the U.S. to



extradite Nazis for trial [in Jerusalem] is an important step. "This



creates the opportunity for at least tacit admission of Israel's special



position with regard to crimes against Jews anywhere in the world," he



says.2



 



After much negotiations the United States arrested Demjanjuk in November of



1983. On April 15, 1985 United States District Judge Frank Battisti ruled



in favor of Demjanjuk's extradition. After the Sixth Court of Appeals



affirmed Battisti's ruling and the Supreme Court denied Demjanjuk's



petition for certiorari, Demjanjuk arrived in Israel on February 27, 1986.



(Lubet and Reed 3) It would appear, from what has been presented, that the



extradition process is simple. But this conclusion is not correct because



there are a few issues that make extradition problematic. One such issue



that complicates the process of extradition is that of identification and



proof.



 



Leading Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann and Klaus Barbie



offer no real dispute in the matter of identification, but war criminals



that were not so prominent leave room to question whether they truly are



who they are accused of being. The type of criminal cases that most of us



are familiar with are those that attempt to prove whether a defendant



committed a particular act or acts. Extradition cases involve two distinct



questions:



 



1) The prosecution must prove that the defendant is actually the person



sought by the requesting country.



 



2) The court must find probable cause to believe that the accused committed



the offense.3



 



In Demjanjuk extradition case Judge Battisti concluded that



identification "requires only a threshold showing probable cause."4 How



this threshold is achieved can be done through the aid of a photograph



comparison with the accused, fingerprints, or an eyewitness.



 



In the matter of probable cause the appellate court used the



formulation of "any evidence warranting the finding that there was



reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty."5 Furthermore it has been



indicated that the extradition process incorporates these rules:



 



Probable cause to support extradition may be based entirely on



hearsay, and the defendant cannot present exculpatory evidence, which the



presiding judge would have to weigh or balance.6 It must be kept in mind



that the extradition process does not attempt to prove the innocence or



guilt of the accused but rather whether the individual is whom he or she is



accused of being. The accuracy of the identification is an issue that is



resolved during the course of the actual trial, and not in the extradition



process. Simply identifying Demjanjuk does not make him extraditable, the



requirement of criminality has to be met as well.



 



Concerning the requirement of criminality the Stanford Journal of Law



said the following:



 



The rule of dual criminality generally provides that extradition



may be had only for acts extraditable by treaty and considered criminal in



both the requested and requesting jurisdictions...Since sovereigns rarely



define crimes using identical phrases and since treaty terms may be



ambiguous or out of date, a substantial jurisprudence has developed



interpreting and applying the requirement of criminality.7



 



In the case of Demjanjuk Israel was charging him with "the crimes of



murdering Jews, [which are] offenses under sections 1 to 4 of the Nazi and



Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law."8 The precise phrase, "murdering



Jews," is not mentioned in the United States-Israel Extradition Treaty,



also the previously mentioned phrase does not exist in current American



penal statute. But, according to the American rule of dual criminality a



way away around this small detail can be found:



 



The law does not require that the name by which the crime is



described in the two countries shall be the same; nor that the scope of the



liability shall be coextensive, or, in other respects, the same in the two



countries. It is enough if the particular act charged is criminal in both



jurisdictions.9 It is clear to see that the previously mentioned American



rule on dual criminality gives the United States the option of recognizing



"murdering Jews" as simply to mean "murder." Therefore, the requirement of



dual criminality in the case of John Demjanjuk is satisfied.



 



The issues of identification and probable cause, along with the



requirement of criminality help to demonstrate the complexities involved in



the extradition process. Two more brief issues to consider regarding



Demjanjuk's extradition are the questions of extraterritoriality and



extratemporality.



 



Extraterritoriality in relation to the case of Demjanjuk would have



only been an issue had another country along with Israel requested the



extradition of John Demjanjuk. In the case where two countries are



requesting the same individual the Secretary of State would have to weigh



the various forums' contacts in order to determine which request to honor.



Israel has unofficially been recognized as the desirable nation for



bringing Nazi war criminals to trial. Germany, Poland, and the U.S.S.R.,



for example, all waived their potential requests for the extradition of



Eichmann in favor of trial by Israel. (Lubet and Reed 44-45)



 



In the matter of extratemporality, the trial judge presiding over the



Demjanjuk case ruled that murder was not barred by lapse of time because



the United States recognizes no statue of limitations for that offense.



(Lubet and Reed 58) Even if murder were to be barred by lapse of time



Demjanjuk could still have been extradited because of his misrepresentation



of his wartime activities during his immigration process. Demjanjuk could



have then been viewed as fleeing from justice and thus no statute of



limitations would have been extended to him.



 



The extradition process of Demjanjuk because it only involves two



countries would appear to be an easy process to complete. Even when



countries are cooperative, as were the United States and Israel, concerning



extradition it is clear that issues such as identification and probable



cause, requirement of criminality, extraterritoriality, and



extratemporality demonstrate how complex the process of extradition can be.



Certainly, Israel could have avoided the complexities and length of time



involved in extradition and gone about obtaining Demjanjuk the same way



they obtained Eichmann, but that method, although it was effective, caused



a bit of a commotion in the international community.



 



Adolf Eichmann of the Reich Security Main Office was the alleged



strategist behind the so-called "final solution of the Jewish question."10



There have been roughly six million murders attributed to him, so it is



easy to understand why concentration camp survivors spent fifteen years



searching for him. Perseverance paid off when Eichmann was found in



Argentina living under an assumed name. A group of volunteers, some of



whom were Israeli citizens acting without the support or direction of the



Israeli Government, removed Eichmann from Argentina and brought him to



Israel where they turned him over to government so that a trial could take



place. So far it can be seen that this method of extradition is quicker



and less complicated than the Demjanjuk method of extradition. There is no



need for identification or probable cause, requirement of dual criminality,



extraterritoriality, or extratemporality. The process is as simple as it



sounds; Eichmann was found and Eichmann was removed. Although the method



for extradition of Eichmann was quick it did result in leaving Argentina



very upset.



 



Argentina felt that Israel's exercise of authority upon Argentine



territory was an infringement on its sovereignty. Israel defended itself



by claiming that Eichmann left Argentina voluntarily, and the Israeli



Government claimed that the group that removed Eichmann was working under



its own direction and not that of the Israeli Government. Israel even went



so far as to issue a letter expressing their regrets for the actions taken



by the free acting group:



 



If the volunteer group violated Argentine law or interfered with



matters within the sovereignty of Argentina, the Government of Israel



wishes to express its regrets.11



 



Argentina's rejoined that even if Eichmann left Argentina on his own



free will that Israel should be responsible for the actions of the private



persons who were Israeli citizens. One simple point to be made here in



reply to Argentina's argument is that only some of the persons involved



with the Eichmann removal were Israeli citizens. There is a small



possibility that the persons who were Israeli citizens were only mere



accessories to the act, guilty of only marginal involvement. Furthermore,



the responsibility of states in connection with the acts of private persons



is predicated upon territorial jurisdiction and not the bond of



nationality. (Svarlien 136) Israel has no jurisdiction within Argentina



and thus has no power over the actions of its citizens within Argentina's



borders. The sole power of jurisdiction in this matter lays in the hands



of Argentina, and since the claim that Eichmann left voluntarily has



neither been shown to be false or expressly denied it appears that no real



Argentine law has been violated.



 



Argentina went on further to argue that Israel's note expressing their



regret in the matter of Eichmann's removal can be viewed as an apology,



which constitutes an admission of guilt. The phrasing of the note of



regret sent by Israel is embedded clearly with conditional terms, which



makes it difficult, if not impossible, to derive an admission of guilt from



it. At no time in the note does Israel praise or approve the volunteer



group actions, and neither does Israel try to justify what was done. If



anything can clearly be derived from the note it is that Israel in fact



does regret the actions of the volunteer group, and possibly even condemns



their behavior. But, Argentina's claim that the note is an admission of



guilt is hardly an argument worth pursuing. Argentina's strongest argument



against the abduction of Eichmann is that Israel chose to detain Eichmann



after he had been captured.



 



Argentina claimed that even though the abduction of Eichmann was an



act committed by private citizens, the Israeli Government's decision to



detain and try Eichmann made them an accessory. This point is Argentina's



strongest argument because it is known that the jurisdiction of the court



reaches only as far as the borders of the state of which it is in. If the



court had no jurisdiction in the nation of the original seizure, then by



what right does that court have to detain and try the accused? The only



problem with Argentina's final argument on the Eichmann abduction is that



proof of forcible seizure or arrest must be presented. Since the abductors



were acting of their own free will it is doubtful that they arrested



Eichmann in the name of Israel. It is, however, quite possible that the



abductors used some force in the removal of Eichmann, but again, use of



force must be proved to give validity to Argentina's final argument.



 



Argentina filed a complaint with the United Nations Security Council



under Article 33 claiming that Israel violated international law, which



created an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust jeopardizing the



preservation of international peace. (Silving 312) After the presentation



of arguments and debates before the Security Council the follow



declarations were made:



 



violation of the sovereignty of a Member State is incompatible with



the Charter of the United Nations; repetition of acts such as that giving



rise to this situation would involve a breach of the principles upon which



international order is founded creating an atmosphere of insecurity and



distrust incompatible with the preservation of peace. The "adjudicative"



part of the resolution.



 



1. Declares that acts such as that under considerations, which affect the



sovereignty of a Member State and therefore cause international friction,



may, if repeated, endanger international peace and security;



 



2. Requests the Government of Israel to make appropriate reparation in



accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and rules of



international law.12 The important part of the resolutions that the United



Nations reached is the phrase "if repeated." It is almost as if the United



Nations said, "this time we will let the infringement go, but next we will



take action."



 



Considering the unique character of the crimes attributed to Eichmann,



and since such crimes are, for the most part, universally condemned,



Israel's breach of international law seems to have been tolerated. It is



quite possible that had the person who was removed been someone other than



Eichmann the result of the United Nations Security Council would have been



much different.



 



The two cases of extradition expose the complexities of international



law. In the case of Demjanjuk, Israel went about the extradition process



in the correct manner, which resulted in the issues of identification and



probable cause, requirement of criminality, extraterritoriality, and



extratemporality. When Israel went about obtaining Adolf Eichmann the



issues dealt with were ones resulting from the method of Eichmann's



apprehension. Eichmann's removal from Argentina brought to light the issue



of violation of a country's sovereignty. In both cases because the accused



were being charged with Nazi war crimes, specifically genocide, there cases



seem to get a little leeway and are not dealt with as extremely as other



cases might be. Nevertheless, their cases demonstrate how one goes about



bringing to justice those charged with violating the laws of war.



 



 



FOOTNOTES



 



1 Roberts, Adam, and Richard Guelff, ed. Documents of the Laws of



War. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.) 155.



 



2 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 3.



 



3 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 15.



 



4 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 15.



 



5 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 18.



 



6 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 18.



 



7 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 20.



 



8 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



 



International Law. 23 (1986): 23.



 



9 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. "Extradition of Nazis from



the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in



Transnational Criminal Law." Stanford Journal of



International Law. 23 (1986): 23.



 



10 Silving, Helen. "In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality"



The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):311.



 



11 Silving, Helen. "In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality"



The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):318.



 



12 Silving, Helen. "In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality"



The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):313.