Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II — John Shaqi
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
The leaders of the German Wehrmacht would have neglected their duty if
confronted with these facts, had they not attempted to solve, at any
price, the problem as to which chemical preparations were capable of
preventing bacterial wound infection and, above all, gas gangrene, and
also whether effective means could be found at all. Whatever the answer
to this question was, it had to be found as soon as possible in order to
avert an imminent danger and to throw light on a question which was
important to the individual wounded soldier as well as to the striking
power of the whole army. After the failure of all attempts to solve the
problem through clinical observation of incidental wounds and other
methods, and, in view of the particularly difficult situation and
especially of the time factor, there was nothing left but to decide the
question through an experiment on human beings. The responsible leaders
of the German Wehrmacht did not hesitate to draw the conclusions
resulting from this situation, and the head of the German Reich, who was
at the same time Commander in Chief of the German Wehrmacht, gave orders
for a final solution of this problem by way of large scale
experimentation.
Let us examine the legal conclusions to be drawn from this situation as
it existed in 1942 for the German Wehrmacht and therefore for the German
state—in particular regarding the assumption of an existing national
emergency.
The problem of emergency and the specific case of self-defense has been
regulated in almost all criminal codes in a way applicable only to
individual cases. The individual is granted impunity under certain
conditions when “acting in an individual emergency arising for himself
or others”. The administration of justice and legal literature, however,
recognize that even the commonwealth, the “state,” can find itself in an
emergency, and that acts which are meant to and actually do contribute
to overcome this emergency may be exempt from punishment.
1. First of all, the question has been raised whether the conception of
self-defense, conceived to cover individual cases, can be extended to
include a state self-defense, meaning a self-defense for the benefit of
the state and the commonwealth. The answer to this question was a
unanimous affirmative.
2. The same reasoning, however, as applied to self-defense is also
applicable to the conception of an emergency, as embodied, for example,
in Section 54 of the German Penal Code and in almost all modern systems
of penal law. These provisions, too, were originally conceived to cover
individual cases. But, using them as a starting point, legal literature
and the administration of justice arrive at a recognition in principle
of a national emergency with a corresponding effect. With regard to the
definition of the concept of an emergency generally given in the penal
laws, the application of these provisions to the state, while justified
in itself, can only be effected in principle.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account