I want to know what these four mean..
1. Conspiracy to Wage War.
2. Crimes Against Peace
3. War Crimes
4. Crimes Against Humanity
I looked in many places, but I couldn't find something simple and plain..
What does conspiracy to wage war mean? And how does it relate with modern times?
Say, for example, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.. (let's not get into the Kosovo debate).. but, is NATO, for planning for war in Yugoslavia, responsible for "conspiring to wage war"?
Is any war-waging country, for any reason, be accused of commiting "crimes against peace"?
Thanks in advance..
Can someone explain to me the warcrime charges?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Ken -- You asked:
(1) "What does conspiracy to wage war mean? And how does it relate with modern times?"
A country can unilaterally declare that it will not fight its neighbors, or participate in a fight against its neighbors unless attacked ("declaration of neutrality"). Two or more countries can form a mutual treaty not to attack each other (a "non-aggression pact"). Among civilized nations, if relations between those countries become tense, one or more of those countries can renounce the treaty -- in other words, give public notice that the renouncing country no longer considers itself bound by the pact.
If one of the countries which has signed a non-aggression pact or treaty attacks another without renouncing the pact or treaty, that is generally considered to be treacherous and illegal -- a crime against peace. An attack on a neutral country is regarded in the same way. Conspiring to do that is also considered a crime. In the Nuernberg trial, the expression "conspiracy to wage aggressive war" meant a conspiracy to attack another country in violation of a treaty and without renouncing the treaty first, or planning an attack on a neutral country.
(2) "Say, for example, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.. (let's not get into the Kosovo debate).. but, is NATO, for planning for war in Yugoslavia, responsible for "conspiring to wage war"?"
No, since Yugoslavia had not declared itself neutral, and I don't believe that the NATO countries had a non-aggression treaty with Yugoslavia.
(3) "Is any war-waging country, for any reason, be accused of commiting "crimes against peace"?"
Unless the war breaks a treaty that the country has entered into, or involves an attack on a neutral state, the war-waging is not generally considered a "crime against peace."
War crimes are a separate offense, that has its origins in the "customs and usages of war." In medieval Europe, wars between Christian states were characterized by somewhat more civilized behavior than wars against Moslem or other non-Christian states. By the time of the Enlightenment, it was generally considered uncivilized for Europeans to kill prisoners, sack towns, enslave Christians, etc. (although it still happened on occasion). By the mid 19th century various European countries entered into treaties for the treatment of POWs and wounded men on the battlefield. These were codified in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and in a series of Geneva conventions, which also protected non-combatant civilians. The Nuernberg war crimes charges involved violations of these treaties.
"Crimes against humanity" is a more recent concept than either crimes against peace or war crimes. Crimes against humanity involve large scale actions which would be criminal even on a small scale, like murder or slavery. Instead of prosecuting each murder individually, the Nuernberg trials treated a program of mass murder as a single crime, and did the same thing with programs involving mass slavery, kidnappings, etc. The program, consisting of hundreds or thousands of individual crimes, would be charged as a crime against humanity.
Generally, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are collectively referred to as "war crimes."
With this overview you may be able to get a better appreciation of the Nuernberg and other war crimes trials. The details of the four charges alleged by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) proceedings can be found here:
COUNT ONE - THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count1.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/counta.htm
COUNT TWO - CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count2.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/countc.htm
see also
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21755
COUNT THREE - WAR CRIMES
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm
COUNT FOUR - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count4.htm
You may also find these threads of interest:
"What Exactly is a War Crime?"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10254
"War Criminal"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16624
"Geneva Convention & Rules of War"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... =war+crime
"When is a War Criminal Not a War Criminal?"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... =war+crime
(1) "What does conspiracy to wage war mean? And how does it relate with modern times?"
A country can unilaterally declare that it will not fight its neighbors, or participate in a fight against its neighbors unless attacked ("declaration of neutrality"). Two or more countries can form a mutual treaty not to attack each other (a "non-aggression pact"). Among civilized nations, if relations between those countries become tense, one or more of those countries can renounce the treaty -- in other words, give public notice that the renouncing country no longer considers itself bound by the pact.
If one of the countries which has signed a non-aggression pact or treaty attacks another without renouncing the pact or treaty, that is generally considered to be treacherous and illegal -- a crime against peace. An attack on a neutral country is regarded in the same way. Conspiring to do that is also considered a crime. In the Nuernberg trial, the expression "conspiracy to wage aggressive war" meant a conspiracy to attack another country in violation of a treaty and without renouncing the treaty first, or planning an attack on a neutral country.
(2) "Say, for example, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.. (let's not get into the Kosovo debate).. but, is NATO, for planning for war in Yugoslavia, responsible for "conspiring to wage war"?"
No, since Yugoslavia had not declared itself neutral, and I don't believe that the NATO countries had a non-aggression treaty with Yugoslavia.
(3) "Is any war-waging country, for any reason, be accused of commiting "crimes against peace"?"
Unless the war breaks a treaty that the country has entered into, or involves an attack on a neutral state, the war-waging is not generally considered a "crime against peace."
War crimes are a separate offense, that has its origins in the "customs and usages of war." In medieval Europe, wars between Christian states were characterized by somewhat more civilized behavior than wars against Moslem or other non-Christian states. By the time of the Enlightenment, it was generally considered uncivilized for Europeans to kill prisoners, sack towns, enslave Christians, etc. (although it still happened on occasion). By the mid 19th century various European countries entered into treaties for the treatment of POWs and wounded men on the battlefield. These were codified in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and in a series of Geneva conventions, which also protected non-combatant civilians. The Nuernberg war crimes charges involved violations of these treaties.
"Crimes against humanity" is a more recent concept than either crimes against peace or war crimes. Crimes against humanity involve large scale actions which would be criminal even on a small scale, like murder or slavery. Instead of prosecuting each murder individually, the Nuernberg trials treated a program of mass murder as a single crime, and did the same thing with programs involving mass slavery, kidnappings, etc. The program, consisting of hundreds or thousands of individual crimes, would be charged as a crime against humanity.
Generally, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are collectively referred to as "war crimes."
With this overview you may be able to get a better appreciation of the Nuernberg and other war crimes trials. The details of the four charges alleged by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) proceedings can be found here:
COUNT ONE - THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count1.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/counta.htm
COUNT TWO - CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count2.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/countc.htm
see also
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21755
COUNT THREE - WAR CRIMES
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm
COUNT FOUR - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count4.htm
You may also find these threads of interest:
"What Exactly is a War Crime?"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10254
"War Criminal"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16624
"Geneva Convention & Rules of War"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... =war+crime
"When is a War Criminal Not a War Criminal?"
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... =war+crime