First, we will discuss whether the principle known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree? in the United States must be applied to the abduction of Adolf Eichmann or not. The violation of International law was "clear? according to Louis Henkin in 1968 but one cannot deny that the end justifies the means . Then, the trial has to be analyzed in both procedural and substantive terms. The jurisdiction of the Israeli court, the nature of the law it applied and the fairness of the proceedings will be brought into focus. Eventually, the topicality of the case will be highlighted.
[...] Everyone agreed on the fact that the principle of personal accountability set at Nuremberg needed complementary rules and ways of implementation if one really wanted to deter and try perpetrators of crimes of Genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity. But it launched a debate on universal jurisdiction for crimes under international law. It has not been brought to a close by the creation of the International Criminal Court of La Hague since, according to the Princeton Project team, an international organ and the recognition of an extended universal jurisdiction for national courts are complementary[43]. [...]
[...] 174- Stay the hand of vengeance: the politics of war crimes tribunals, Gary Jonathan Bass p How Nations Behave, Louis Henkin id. p The House on Garibaldi Street, Isser Harel p How Nations Behave, Louis Henkin in this part, & are categories chosen by Robert K. Woetzel in The Nuremberg Trials in International Law, with a Postlude on the Eichmann Case; my reactions to his arguments is based on other more recent sources that will be indicated below Robert K. [...]
[...] They looked at the aims of these Conventions and those of the UN Charter and deduced the main objectives with regard to the Eichmann case are: - to put an end to the impunity of the crime of Genocide - to ensure personal accountability for such heinous crimes The question is, to what extent objectives can prevail over procedural rules? Can procedural flaws be excused or should they bring systematic disregard or even invalidation of the judgment in question? II. [...]
[...] On the ground of the “principle of universality”, procedural device by which international law grants all states jurisdiction to punish specified acts that are independently crimes under international law”. It was designed to “respond to pragmatic difficulties”[30]. The Eichmann case boosted the debate on the second type of demand for universal jurisdiction: “crimes under international that can be defined as “acts so heinous that they strike at the ‘whole of mankind' and shock conscience of nations'”. Therefore, “nations have come together and criminalised these acts at the international level, thereby permitting or obliging states to exercise jurisdiction over their perpetrator”[31]. [...]
[...] The other States governments had never really believed the official version given by the Israeli spokesman, i.e. that the abduction of Eichmann was the fact of “private persons who, though citizens of Israel, in no way represented the government”[13]. That's why Argentina rightly felt entitled to bring the case before the Security Council which sided with her by “reaffirming the principle or territorial integrity and called upon Israel to ‘make appropriate reparation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law'”. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
