## Facts

- The International Military Tribunal (IMT) was established by the London Agreement and Charter of Aug. 8, 1945, to try major war criminals whose offenses lacked a single geographic locus.
- The Allied powers prosecuted senior political, military, and economic leaders of Nazi Germany for crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and participation in a common plan or conspiracy.
- The indictment alleged a coordinated program of territorial expansion and aggressive war, including the incorporation of Austria, the dismantling of Czechoslovakia, and the invasion of Poland.
- The prosecution relied in part on Germany’s treaty commitments, including the Kellogg–Briand Pact, condemning recourse to war as an instrument of national policy.
- Trial proceedings ran from Nov. 20, 1945 to Aug. 31, 1946; judgment was delivered Sept. 30–Oct. 1, 1946.
- The judgment addressed jurisdiction, sources of law, and the criminal character of planning and waging aggressive war, along with individual accountability for state-directed conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression (or a war in violation of treaties, agreements, or assurances) is punishable as a crime under international law.
2. Whether imposing criminal liability for crimes against peace violates *nullum crimen sine lege* when relevant treaties did not specify penal sanctions.
3. Whether individuals may be held criminally responsible under international law for acts traditionally attributed to the state, including resort to war.
4. Whether official position or obedience to superior orders bars or limits individual criminal responsibility.

## Decision

- The IMT upheld its jurisdiction under the Charter and treated the Charter’s core crimes as reflecting international law as it existed when adopted.
- The IMT held that initiating and waging aggressive war is an international crime and that participation in planning and initiating such wars is punishable as crimes against peace.
- The IMT rejected the claim that prosecutions for crimes against peace were impermissibly retroactive, reasoning that aggressive war had been legally condemned before the charged conduct.
- The IMT held individuals, not only states, may incur criminal responsibility for violations of international law, including high-ranking officials.
- The IMT held official capacity does not confer immunity; superior orders do not provide a complete defense, though they may bear on punishment.
- The IMT convicted multiple defendants on crimes against peace (and other charges), acquitted some defendants on some or all counts, and imposed sentences ranging from imprisonment to death.

## Legal Principles

- Planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, constitutes a punishable crime under international law.
- International legal prohibitions on aggressive war may arise from treaties and related state practice; criminal enforcement may attach to deliberate violations of such prohibitions.
- International crimes are committed by individuals; effective enforcement of international law may require personal criminal accountability for those who direct or implement unlawful state policy.
- Official position, including head-of-state or senior governmental status, does not bar criminal responsibility for international crimes.
- Obedience to superior orders does not automatically exculpate an accused; it may be considered in mitigation where appropriate.

## Conclusion

The IMT’s judgment established that aggressive war is an international crime that can generate individual criminal liability, confirmed that the tribunal’s chartered offenses reflected existing international law rather than retroactive punishment, and rejected immunity based on official capacity while limiting superior orders to a possible sentencing consideration.


Judgment of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), 41 Am. J. Int'l L. 186 (1947)