Editing War of aggression (section)

===The Nuremberg Principles===

In 1945, the [[London Charter of the International Military Tribunal]] defined three categories of crimes, including ''[[crimes against peace]]''. This definition was first used by [[Finland]] to prosecute the political leadership in the [[war-responsibility trials in Finland]]. The principles were later known as the [[Nuremberg Principles]].

In 1950, the [[Nuremberg Trials|Nuremberg Tribunal]] defined [[Crimes against peace|Crimes against Peace]], in [[Nuremberg Principles#Principle VI|Principle VI]], specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the [[United Nations General Assembly]], as:<ref name="emlyn">[http://www.emlyn.org.uk/stopwar/rmanson/review/digest.shtml "Skeleton Argument for High Court Judicial Review"]. Emlyn.org.uk, 2006. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080702012835/http://www.emlyn.org.uk/stopwar/rmanson/review/digest.shtml |date=2008-07-02 }}.
</ref><ref name="Trid">[http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1079 "Tri-denting It Handbook, 3rd ed. (2001) – Part 6"], Trident Ploughshares, Norwich NR2 1NR, 2001.
{{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925104337/http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1079 |date=2007-09-25 }}.
</ref>
{{blockquote|{{ordered list|list_style_type=lower-roman
| Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
| Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).}}}}

See: ''[[Nuremberg Trials]]:'' "The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, [[Debellatio#Nazi_Germany|political authority for Germany had been transferred]] to the [[Allied Control Council]], which having sovereign power over Germany could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939."

For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting [[World War II]]. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or – it seems – the enforcement of the [[criminal law]] of ''[[jus cogens]]''. It has made formal [[declaration of war]] uncommon after 1945.

Reading the Tribunal's final judgment in court, British alternate judge [[Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett|Norman Birkett]] said:

{{blockquote|The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.<ref name="judgment"/>}}

Associate Supreme Court Justice [[William O. Douglas]] charged that the [[Allies of World War II|Allies]] were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg: "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. [[ex post facto law|Law was created ex post facto]] to suit the passion and clamor of the time."<ref>H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz (1983). ''Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal''. Torrance, California. {{ISBN?}}</ref>