## Facts

- The International Military Tribunal (IMT) was established by the London Agreement and Charter (Aug. 8, 1945) to try major war criminals whose offenses lacked a specific geographic locus.
- The four prosecuting states were the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union.
- Twenty-two individuals were indicted; one committed suicide before trial, and one was tried in absentia; proceedings against another were postponed for medical reasons.
- The indictment charged: (1) conspiracy; (2) crimes against peace (aggressive war); (3) war crimes; and (4) crimes against humanity.
- The prosecution also sought criminal declarations as to several Nazi and state organizations, including the SS (with the SD), Gestapo, and others.
- Trial proceedings ran from late 1945 to mid-1946; the IMT issued its judgment and sentences on September 30 and October 1, 1946.

## Issues

1. Whether the IMT had jurisdiction, consistent with international law, to try individuals for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
2. What conduct and mental state establish individual responsibility for planning, initiating, and waging aggressive war.
3. Whether widespread atrocities against civilians and prisoners of war constituted punishable war crimes and crimes against humanity, and whether crimes against humanity required a jurisdictional connection to war.
4. Whether a “common plan or conspiracy” was punishable, and whether organizations could be declared criminal to support derivative liability for members.
5. Whether defenses based on superior orders, official position/act of state, or illegality-retroactivity barred conviction or limited punishment.

## Decision

- The IMT upheld its jurisdiction and treated the Charter’s definitions as reflecting and applying international law.
- The IMT held that individuals, not only states, may commit and be punished for violations of international law.
- The IMT found that planning and waging aggressive war is a punishable international crime and convicted defendants where evidence showed knowing participation in the aggressive-war program.
- The IMT found extensive violations of the laws and customs of war and held that certain persecutions and mass atrocities constituted crimes against humanity when committed in connection with crimes within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- The IMT narrowed the conspiracy theory, accepting conspiracy primarily as to crimes against peace rather than an all-encompassing conspiracy for every charged offense.
- The IMT declared certain organizations criminal (notably the SS/SD and the Gestapo) and declined to declare others criminal on a membership-alone theory.
- The IMT rejected superior orders as a complete defense (allowing, at most, mitigation) and rejected immunity based on official position or “act of state.”
- Sentences included: death for multiple defendants (including a death sentence in absentia), life imprisonment for some, fixed prison terms for others, and acquittals for three defendants.

## Legal Principles

- International law may impose direct criminal duties and liabilities on individuals; enforcement may proceed by punishing individual perpetrators.
- Crimes against peace include planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties.
- War crimes encompass serious violations of the laws and customs of war, including unlawful killing, ill-treatment, and deportation of civilians and prisoners of war.
- Crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds; under the IMT’s approach, they were punishable when connected to offenses within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- “Common plan or conspiracy” liability may apply, but must be supported by proof of knowing participation in the relevant criminal plan; broad, undifferentiated conspiracy theories are not automatic.
- Organizations may be declared criminal where the entity’s purpose and activities include participation in international crimes; membership alone is insufficient where knowing participation is not shown.
- Superior orders do not absolve responsibility for international crimes, though they may be considered in mitigation.
- Official capacity, including head-of-state or high office, does not immunize a person from responsibility for acts condemned as international crimes.

## Conclusion

The IMT judgment affirmed that individuals can be held criminally responsible under international law for aggressive war, war crimes, and certain crimes against humanity, rejected official immunity and superior-orders as complete defenses, and authorized criminal-organization findings for entities shown to have participated in international crimes, resulting in individualized convictions, acquittals, and sentences.


Nuremberg Judgment & Sentences (Int’l Mil. Trib. 1946), reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172 (1947)