Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIIVarious
History
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
the Plenipotentiary General for the Administration of the Reich, who
was a member of the Ministerial Council for National Defense. Bills
were drafted in accordance with his instructions. If the initiative
for drafting a bill came from the Ministry of Justice itself the
Plenipotentiary General for the Administration of the Reich had to
concur in the matter.
To judge the position of the individual defendant in the Ministry,
a detailed presentation of the organization of the judicial
administration becomes necessary. We must deal with the problem of
subordination of the various offices in their relations with each
other. In particular, the defense will attempt to give the Tribunal
a picture of the actual workings of the Ministry of Justice. Within
the framework of a bureaucratic organization the sphere of activity
of a minister, an under secretary, division chiefs, subdivision
chiefs, a Referenten, and co-workers [Mitarbeiter], will be defined
and certain organizational changes wrought in the course of time
will be taken in consideration. The scope of authority pertaining
to the superior-subordinate relationship is also of importance. Of
equal importance are the limits of signing power fixed for each
individual official of the Ministry of Justice as well as the degree
of responsibility he assumed whenever he affixed his signature. A
signature does not always imply the assumption of a responsibility
nor does it always signify that someone in particular was charged
with the handling or discharging of a specific task. A document has
quite frequently been submitted to an official of the Ministry of
Justice for the sole purpose of having him take official notice of
its contents, i.e., the only object being to apprise the official
in question of some measure or other. This method of passing on
information, of course, could serve many other purposes which remain
to be discussed. A simple request, however, to take official notice,
combined with an accompanying acknowledgment of receipt signed by an
official, never meant that the official had, by affixing his signature,
assumed responsibility for the matter on hand. Finally, there remains
the problem of throwing light upon the relationship existing between
individual departments of the Ministry of Justice and that of defining
the meaning and aim of a cosignature. The act of cosigning indicated
primarily that the subject matter and its treatment as viewed in the
light of the cosigner’s own field of activity, i.e., from an expert’s
point of view alone, gave rise to no objections.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account