Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Edited Legal Collections Data

"USA/UK/USSR/France: Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945" [2005] ELECD 321; in Tully, Stephen (ed), "International Documents on Corporate Responsibility" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005)

Book Title: International Documents on Corporate Responsibility

Editor(s): Tully, Stephen

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781843768197

Section: Chapter 98

Section Title: USA/UK/USSR/France: Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945

Number of pages: 3

Extract:

98. USA/UK/USSR/France: Charter of the
International Military Tribunal, 1945

Commentary: The Charter is annexed to the Agreement for the Prosecution and
Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis (the London
Agreement) 82 UNTS 280. Although permitting declarations of criminality against
organisations, the International Military Tribunal (IMT) applied the Charter provisions
extracted below as analogous to conspiracy since criminal guilt was personal and with
a view to avoiding mass punishment: IMT (1947), `Judgment', American Journal of
International Law 41 (1) 172: 249­72. Declarations applied to individuals who volun-
tarily became members of the corporate `instrumentality of cohesion' with knowledge
of its criminal purposes but were declined where individuals never consciously acted
as an affiliated group or could be conveniently tried individually.
Corporations utilised concentration camp interns, prisoners of war and civilians for
forced labour and manufactured gas for use within those camps. Several senior corpo-
rate individuals were prosecuted: see In re Flick & Ors 14 ILR 266; In re Krupp & Ors 15
ILR 620; In re Krauch & Ors (the IG Farben Trial) 15 ILR 668. Although acquitted of
crimes against peace, labour practices amounted to crimes against humanity, war
crimes and violations of the laws and customs of warfare. Acquiring assets cheaply
using the threat of seizure by the occupying power violated the belligerent obligation
to respect private property. The argument that actors lacking public positions could
not be liable for violating government obligations was rejected since acts adjudged
criminal when committed by officials ...