International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities

TLDR

For the past fifty years, the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals and subsequent national prosecutions have been the primary mechanisms for holding violators of international humanitarian law accountable, yet many atrocities—including those by Pol Pot and Iraq—remain unpunished, prompting the adoption of treaties and a growing consensus on universal jurisdiction and the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Principles. The paper argues that the International Law Commission, along with veterans of the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings, scholars such as Rafael Lemkin and M.

Abstract

For half a century, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and national prosecutions of World War II cases remained the major instances of criminal prosecution of offenders against fundamental norms of international humanitarian law. The heinous activities of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the use of poison gas by Iraq against its Kurdish population are among the many atrocities left unpunished by either international or national courts. Some treaties were adopted that provide for national prosecution of offenses of international concern and, in many cases, for universal jurisdiction; but, with a few exceptions, these treaties were not observed. Notwithstanding the absence of significant prosecutions, an international consensus on the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Principles, the applicability of universal jurisdiction to international crimes, and the need to punish those responsible for egregious violations of international humanitarian law slowly solidified. The International Law Commission, veterans of the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings, individuals such as Rafael Lemkin (who advocated the adoption of the Genocide Convention) and a handful of academics (most notably M. Cherif Bassiouni), among others, helped keep alive the heritage of Nuremberg and the promise of future prosecutions of serious violators of international humanitarian law.