This dissertation examines the concept of crimes against humanity which was introduced in the London Charter for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and which is invoked in opposition to severe human rights violations today. Using the case method in combination with legal, comparative, and historical analysis, the work serves two purposes: first, it defines and describes the concept from its inception to the present, and second, it explores and evaluates the legal problem raised by the concept for contemporary politics.;Chapter One contains a definition that emerged from trial proceedings (Nuremberg, Tokyo, Law No. 10 applications, and Eichmann) and from debate in the United Nations. This survey reveals a close connection between the concept and war or war crimes in some instances and a sharp departure from war-related offenses in others. Consequently, three components are extrapolated from the concept of crimes against humanity: massive war crimes, genocide, and other inhumane acts.;In order to refine and clarify the concept further, these categories are applied to the individual criminal conduct of the Nuremberg defendants in Chapter Two. Therein, a diagram is constructed which includes the concept's definition, description, and particular characteristics.;Chapter Three traces the legal foundation of crimes against humanity to natural law roots in the Breisach Trial of 1474 and discusses the underlying reasons for the conflict that arose when the concept was introduced into the dominantly positive international law environment of 1945. Although the Nuremberg Tribunal accepted an attachment between the concept and war for jurisdictional reasons, post-war efforts concentrated upon emancipation of the concept. Genocide and war crimes involving civilians were incorporated into separate conventions but effective enforcement mechanisms and courts of competent jurisdiction have not been developed to date. Several countries have incorporated the concept into domestic codes where it is subject to statutory limitations. International efforts to erase these limitations have not been universally accepted. Difficulties arise when national leaders plan and perpetrate crimes against humanity in the face of opposition from other members of the international system. The criminals are, in effect, asked to enforce international law against themselves, which may endanger the regime's future. Politics and law clash.;This dissertation suggests in Chapter Four that the most effective instrument for stopping crimes against humanity today is way. However, resort to war may not only be globally risky but may lead to crimes that might be described either as war crimes or as crimes against humanity. In such a case, two approaches may aid in determining the appropriate category. In the first, the activities of policy-makers are scrutinized in an attempt to determine whether or not the crimes were intentional. In the second approach, the relationship between the crime and the conduct of war is examined. This chapter also discusses the analytical problems that arose concerning the claims of crimes against humanity in Vietnam where the civilian-combatant status within the population was blurred.;Chapter Five examines claims concerning alleged crimes against humanity during peace-time in Bangladesh, Burundi, Biafra, South Africa, North Ireland, and the Soviet Union. Some of these claims, if accepted, would expand the concept substantially.;A concluding section describes and evaluates continuing problems with the concept. The tendencies to resort to rhetorical use of the concept and to expand it to include all repugnant behavior may serve to further weaken an already fragile concept in the realm of law. This section also offers tentative suggestions for strengthening it in the future.
展开▼
