Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Abstract

The essay is about Nuremberg trials and its relevance to international


law, which constituted a historic land mark in the development
international law especially in the field of international criminal law, it
highlights how they gave rise to a new system of modern international
criminal justice which includes courts, ad hoc tribunals and permanent
international criminal court, all are deeply rooted in the Nuremberg
trials together with new concepts in international criminal law includes
inter alia criminal individual responsibility, the concept of crimes
against humanity, lifting of state protection to the state officials, the
development of international humanitarian law, the impact of the
fusion of common law system and civil law jurisdiction as well as
discussing criticism to Nuremberg trials which serves to swallow the probative
force of these trials in international law for example the reconciliation
between immunity to state officials vis a vis the principle of individual
responsibility.

ii

1:

Introduction

1.1: Nuremberg trials were series of trials composed of mainly three


constituent parts, the international military tribunal, subsequent
Nuremberg proceedings, the zonal trials, the first two were held in
the city of Nuremberg in German at the palace of justice in 1945-1949,
the zonal trials were held in different countries wherein Nazi criminal
were brought to justice but the offence committed were held to be
minor.
The best part of the three sets of trials is the trial of major war
criminal before international military tribunal at Nuremberg
where 22 prominent political leaders of Nazi and organizations
served in Adolf Halters government were indicted by the chief
prosecutor Robert H Jackson on four counts thats to say; conspiracy to
commit the other three counts, crimes against humanity, war
crimes, crimes against peace, the defendants were represented by
German counsel.
Nuremberg trials came into being as a result of agreement amongst the
Second World War victors thats to say; Britain, United States of America,
the Soviet Union and France signed an agreement in London popularly
known as the London charter of 1945 that established the tribunal
and the rules it had to apply.
The principal object and purpose of the legislation was to establish
means under which the individuals accountable for world war two
atrocities would be brought to justice majorly the Nazi, the president and
other judges who constituted the tribunal established by the charter
were appointed by the victor allied powers of the Second World War1.
It is therefore appropriate to submit that Nuremberg and Tokyo
trials were founded on the wish that atrocities similar to those
that had occurred during the second world war would never
reoccur the world admired. It is notable that the Second World
War involved horrendous and horrific acts that shocked human
sensibilities beyond belief like the HOLOCAUST, wanton plundering
of cities, towns and villages among others, it is upon that backdrop that

1 Power of appointment derived from article 2 of the charter of international military


tribunal annexed to the London agreement of 1945

Nuremberg tribunal was premised on the need that those responsible for
such acts were brought to book.
Its imperative to note that the judgments of Nuremberg
tribunal birthed the following principles which over times have
been recognized by various international instruments, in fact
UN directed the international law commission to formulate `the
said principles which later adopted by the UN resolution 177,
the principles are given below;
1
Principle I,
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under
international law is responsible therefore liable for punishment. The
punishment hereinafter setout is punishable as crimes under
international law, these crimes were; crime against peace, war crimes
and crime against a humanity2.
Principle ii
The fact that international law does not impose a penalty for an act
which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve a
person who committed the act from responsibility under international
law
Principle iii ,
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime
under international law acted as a head of state or any other state
responsible official does not relieve him or her from responsibility under
international law.
3

2 Set forth under article 1 and 2 of the charter of international military tribunal of
agreement.
3 Emanated from article 7 and 3 of charter of international military tribunal
annexed to the London agreement of 1945

Principle iv, 4The fact that a person who committed an act acted
pursuant to orders of the government does not relieve him or her from
criminal responsibility under international law.
Principle v. Any person who is charged with the crime under
international law has a right to fair trial or hearing.
It is notable that all the aforesaid principles that were enunciated by the
tribunal were creature of the charter of the international military
tribunal annexed to the agreement of 8th august of 1945
1.2: International law is a body of rules established by customs or
treaties and recognized by nations as binding , it has two sets for
example private and public international law,
Private international law has been defined as a branch of
jurisprudence arising from the adverse laws of various nations
that applies when private citizens of different countries interact
or transact business with one another
2
Whereas,

Public international law is defined as rules and norms which


regulate the conduct of states and other entities which at any
time are recognized as being endowed with international
personality5 the source of international law are; international
customs, treaties, general principles as recognized by civilized
nations as espoused under article 386
2: NUREMBERG TRIALS HAVE A NUMBER OF RAMIFICATIONS TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW THEREBY ITS RELEVANCE IS DISCUSSED
HEREUNDER;

4 Ibid article 8 and 4


5Malanczuk p , Akehurst, modern introduction to international law at 57 7 th edition
6 ICJ statute

2.1: Defined crimes against humanity for the first time and for
future reference.
Nuremberg trials delineated the fact that any conduct seriously violating
international cherished value is a crime under international law , and it
should not be left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the country on whose
territory it was committed or by whose nationals it was perpetrated
against, the international community must have a prior right to try and
punish such acts, it should be recalled that crime against humanity
was given a precise definition as it included massive murdering,
extermination , enslavement , deportation and other inhumane
acts of the same genus done against civilian population based
on
political,
racial ,ethnic, religious grounds, or such
persecution carried on in connection with any crime against
peace or any war crimes. so Genocide was included as crime against
humanity as its magnitude shocked the conscience of mankind , it is
upon this elaborate definition laid down in Nuremberg trials that the
UN resolution 961 was drawn up on the 11 th 1946 stating that genocide
is a crime under international law contrary to the spirit of UN and
vehemently condemned by civilized world, again deriving from the
Nuremberg trials the concept of crime against humanity as effectuated
by the Nazi developed, in fact all these were later embodied in the
convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide, the said
convention criminalized genocide and related activities in
international sphere, article v7 enjoins state parties to regulate
their legal system and accordingly criminalize such acts in the
domestic sphere
and those found guilty of
the crime of
genocide should be tried in the

3
courts of the country where the acts allegedly to have been
committed
,
8
practically genocide as defined in article 11 covers all those measures
taken by the Nazi during
persecution and brutal extermination of
7 Convention on prevention and punishment of crime of genocide of 1949
8 ibid

certain social, religious and cultural groups, indeed these atrocities


which the members of Nuremberg court dubbed as crime against
humanity took a concrete form under the genocide convention, these
indeed explains the depth and breadth of the Nuremberg trial in
transformation of international criminal law, moreover the current
established Rome statute which spells out crimes within the jurisdiction
of the court including among others ,the crime of genocide, crimes
against humanity .thereby it is permissible therefore as backed by the
above submission to conclude that Nuremberg trial had been of a great
relevance to international criminal law.
2.2:
1948

Inspired the development and formulation of UDHR of

The trials unveiled gravest wrongs which were so horrendous and


horrific committed by the defendants like the holocaust thereby it
indicated blatant and gloss violation of fundamental human rights ,it is
an disputable fact that such heinous acts motivated and inspired UN
members to declare and promulgate the universal declaration of human
rights of 1948 purposely to fetter and put a clog on such acts ,in
furtherance of protection and promotion of fundamental rights, just as
they were outlawed by Nuremberg tribunal as a new trend divergent
from Nazi policy of pure race policy were those
deemed
deficient were exterminated for example the disabled ,those of
non German origin like Jews ,article 29 expunged such acts as it
provides that all people are entitled to rights without distinction
based on colour ,race, language, sex, religion ,birth, residency.
The aforesaid provisions are very fundamental as regard to the
recognition of equality of human beings; it is because of its
immeasurable gravity that many various human right instruments10
have incorporated these provisions

2.3: Furthermore as mean to uphold fundamental human rights


the tribunal refuted the defense of absolute sovereignty instead court
recognized and approved the right of humanitarian intervention
9 Universal declaration of human rights of 1949
10

ICESCR ,ICCPR

among others

to put a stop to international crimes ,even where the sovereign


state if turns against its own people, it is upon this basis that all
countries11
4
agreed that if peaceful methods are inadequate and if national
authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from
massive atrocities, states should act collectively in a timely
and decisive manner through UN Security Council and in
accordance with the UN CHARTER. Hence pursuant to the aforesaid
the international community moved quickly to stop government of Libya
from killing its own people by the resolution, 12 the UN security council
enabled the international coalition to intervene so as to stop the killing
of protestors by then president Gaddafi, the same happened in IVORY
COAST where the UN13 authorized military operation to prevent
the use of heavy weapon against civilians in the aftermath of
the November 2011 disputed elections between
the current
president QUATTARA and ex president GBAGBO ,humanitarian intervention
has been also seen ,when the UN peace keeping mission was deployed
in south Sudan to advise , assist and the government in fulfilling its
responsibilities to protect its citizens 14, it therefore follows from the
above that the legacy left by Nuremberg trials in humanitarian field
which indeed indispensable as discussed above goes to show that
Nuremberg trials had a profound relevance to international law.

2.4: Retraction of ex post facto principle in international law


During the trial the counsel for the defendant vehemently opposed
the prosecution
citing that the law applied to them
was
retrospective as the crimes for which the defendants were
indicted of , were not defined in any international instrument,
11 Sept 2005 at UN world summit
12UN resolution 1973 of march 2011
13 UN resolution 1975 of 2011
14 By UN resolution 1996 of July 2011

counsel averred that the defendants were prosecuted for actions


only defined after they had been committed, the tribunal in
refuting the argument of the German counsel traced the history of
international criminal law and its growing recognition in treaties and
declaration ,the court held that aggressive war was illegal act
,the tribunal reasoned that there was no longer anything ex
post facto about such a charge , the court affirmed that leaders
who deliberately attacked neighboring states without a just
cause must know that such acts are out rightly prohibited and
it would be unjust to allow them to escape justice merely
because no one had been charged with that offence in the past
, the law is not static the tribunal confirmed , this was a new exposition
in international criminal law, it impliedly retracted the principle that no
person should be held responsible

5
for an act which at time of its commission does not amounts to an
offence. However more recent development in this field sets a contrary
position to Nuremberg exposition of ex post facto principle for example
article 2215 recognize nullum crimen sine lege it states that a person
shall not be
criminally responsible unless the conduct in
question constitutes, at the time it takes place a crime, also
retrospectivity is outlawed by article 24 which provides that no person
shall be criminally liable for conduct prior to the entry into force of the
statute, it can be said that those articles serves as a modification to the
Nuremberg principle of ex post facto nevertheless the trials remains
relevant as to the circumstances of the time justice needed to be done.

2.5: More so the precept of individual criminal responsibility


gained credence in international law.
It should be remembered that prior to Nuremberg trials individuals were
not recognized as subjects of international law ,and few crimes were
recognized as international crimes for example piracy and slave trading,
but Nuremberg trial widened the scope
covering crimes against
15 Rome statute of the international criminal court of 2002

humanity , crimes against peace war crimes, it is empirical fact that


international law did not address individuals but only addressed
them through their respective states ,this fact was raised as a
defense by the defendants the court averred that such crimes
were committed by individuals not abstract entities thereby
themselves
in their natural personal capacity should be
brought to the judgment of the law , moreover the court rejected
the defense of superior orders, retaliating that the fact that a
person acted pursuant to orders of the government does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law ,the court
gave allowance that superior orders were only to be considered
in mitigation of the punishment but at no time could be a complete
defense, this therefore implies that whoever responsible for international
crime must face justice, matters not whether a criminal is a head of
state or a common citizen, this principle is a creature of Nuremberg trial
and was later adopted by article 3316 it states that no general
penalty, pecuniary or otherwise shall be
inflicted upon
a
population on account of acts of individual for which they
cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible thereby
the article by implication prohibit collective penalty, in addition
6
The court under Rome statute is enjoined with the jurisdiction
over natural persons17
it is therefore comprehensible that various international ad hoc tribunals
subsequent to Nuremberg trials acted on the principle of individual
criminal responsibility as many people have been tried, convicted and
punished individually for commission of international crimes for example
RODOVAN KARADZIC tried before international tribunal for Yugoslavia in his
personal capacity, PAUL AKAYESU prosecuted, convicted and punished
before international tribunal for Rwanda ,the ongoing grand trial of
three Kenyan officials head of state UHURU KENYATA and his deputy
WILLIAM RUTO as well a journalist indicted for alleged commission of
international crimes during the post violence of 2007 elections , this is a
true manifestation of bringing political leaders to account, this position is
16 Hague resolution of 1949 adopted by the Geneva conventions of 1949
17 Article 25 (1) of the Rome statute of 2002

also reflected in the Rome statute wherein the court is empowered to try
the sitting president for commission of international crimes 18, among
others the indictment of president of north Sudan OMAR ALI BASHIR
by the ICC former prosecutor Moreno ocampo , from the above
therefore it is acknowledgeable fact that the impact of Nuremberg on
international law is so tremendous as it set forth new precept as
discussed above.
2.6: Nuremberg had a profound effect on the emergence of
international ad hoc tribunal and permanent international
criminal court.
Nuremberg tribunal was the first tribunal were violators of international
law were held responsible for such gravest breaches of international
law , it thereby birthed further tribunals established for similar purpose
and such subsequent tribunal to Nuremberg tribunal have been following
its principles , it is therefore notable that Nuremberg trials had
precedential value for the creation of the following international ad hoc
tribunal ; for example the ICTY19 which handed down its first verdict
in 1994 September wherein it tried and
convicted DRAZEN
20
EDOMOVIC , ICTR
was established with mandate to prosecute for
crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes
regardless of whether the conflict is international or a civil
strife thus the tribunal brought to justice those who perpetrated
the
1994
Rwanda
genocide
for
example
PAUL
AKAYESU,KAYISHEMA,RUZINDANA, RUZZIO, in summary the ICTR had
finished 50 trials and convicted 29 criminals, and for the same
purpose extra ordinary chamber were created as result of
agreement between the UN and the government of Cambodia
in February 2012 the said chamber tried and
7
Sentenced KAING
imprisonment,

GWEK EAV

the former head of detention camp for life

18 Article 27 of the Rome statute


19 Established by the UN resolution 837 of 1994,
20 Established by the UN resolution 995 0f 1994

On the same account the special tribunal for sierra Leone headed
then by the Ugandan jurist Julius sebutinde as well as in Lebanon
were established.
Furthermore the Nuremberg trials laid
foundation for
establishment of the permanent international criminal court set
forth under article 121 and its jurisdiction is limited to serious crimes
against humanity , war crimes , crimes of genocide crime of aggression,
the ICC serves the object and purpose in the context of intrinsic
interpretation that similar to Nuremberg tribunal, it is conceivable that
the conviction and punishment of criminal by Nuremberg tribunal was
one of the mechanism through which such terrific incidents could not
happen again , the ICC statute to effectuate the said motive established
the principle of complementality, this principle empowers the
state parties to domesticate the statute into its municipal penal
law to try its own citizens who are alleged to have committed
international crimes, this is indeed
unprecedented international
criminal reform .the ICC has since its conception in 2002 indicted
several people for example UHURU KENYATA, WILLIAM RUTO for crimes
against humanity committed during the post election violence of 2007 ,
lord resistance army leader JOSEPH KONY for alleged crimes against crimes
against humanity perpetrated against people of
northern Uganda,
Congo and Central Africa Republic, THOMAS LUBANGA the leader of militia
in DRC convicted by the court for war crimes related to conscripting of
the children into the army and sentenced for 14years of imprisonment,
among others. It is therefore, follows from the above, that an inference
can be drawn from Nuremberg trials that it had a precedential value for
the creation of various international ad hoc tribunals and eventually the
permanent international criminal court as the judicial response to such
horrendous international crimes therefore Nuremberg tribunal is indeed
a skeletal structure for the current international criminal tribunal
charged with bringing perpetrators of international crimes to justice.
2.7:

Development of international humanitarian law

this branch of international law regulates laws and customs of war which
serve to protect non combatants ,prisoners of wars and even the
combatants, the Nuremberg trial fundamentally established the
traditional tripartite that is to say war crimes, crimes against
21 Rome statute came into force in 2002

humanity ,crimes against peace, this was the first landmark as it


widened the field of international humanitarian law,
8
the Nuremberg tribunal considered various treaties that dealt with the
laws and customs of war under which international humanitarian law
emanated from , among others was the article 228 and 229 22 that
established the right of allied powers to try and punish individual
responsible for violation of laws and customs of war, the court also
traced the convention23 that strictly prohibited the violation of the
customs of war, the Geneva convention 24 which contained the
punishment of individuals who violated the rules of war and finally
article 3025that established the protection of sick and wounded soldiers
in a battle field was considered before delivering judgment, the tribunal
upheld the aforesaid propositions which treaty law recognizes up-todate,
It is imperative to note that the international legal provisions on war
crimes and crimes, against humanity have been adopted and developed
within the framework of international law, the law of armed conflict, as a
special branch of international law which has its own
peculiarities and which has gone through an intense period of
growth, evolution and consolidation in the last 50years, the
rules of humanitarian law concerning crimes and responsibility
have not always appeared sufficiently, what is acknowledgeable is
that Nuremberg trial developed and shaped a deeper consciousness of
the states prosecuting serious violation of laws of war which ever since
Nuremberg tribunal have embedded in municipal laws of various states
as well as international instruments, and as a new development, jus in
bello as a body of laws that imposes sanction against
combatants who commit serious violations against restricted
22 Treaty of Versailles of 1919
23 Hague convention of 1899
24 Geneva convention of1907 on the treatment of prisoner of war
25 1929 Geneva convention for amelioration of conditions of wounded and sick
armies

rules, these rules were applied to states prior to Nuremberg


trial but were applied to individuals at Nuremberg trials and
gradually developed and adopted as it was seen upheld in1990s
in Rwanda and Yugoslavia where various culprits were tried for
breaching of customs and laws of war, this further development and
application of new concepts like individual criminal responsibility entered
in the field of international humanitarian law and others are thereby
attributed to Nuremberg trials.
3: However despite the aforesaid
the Nuremberg trials caused in
against Nuremberg trials have
conclusion that they were of no
below;

remarkable transformation,
international law, criticism
been leveled drawing a
relevance ,hence discussed

9
3.1 The principle of individual criminal responsibility and lifting
of state protection to state officials as remnants of Nuremberg
trials have affected the international customary law norms that
confer immunity from prosecution to the head of states.
International customary law reserves immunity of state officials from
being prosecuted for crimes whatsoever nature, this is what is termed as
functional immunity and this is deeply rooted in the non derogable norm
of state sovereignty26, in Pinochet case and sierra Leon international
tribunal, in both the court reasoned that heads of states as a
matter of international customary law must be accorded
immunity from criminal prosecution during their tenure of
office. Though defendants in both tribunals had ceased to be head of
states thus were not entitled to such immunity but under the Rome
statute official capacity is rendered irrelevant, the international criminal
court is endowed with jurisdiction to try even the sitting presidents 27 and
pursuant to the said, president OMAR ALI BASHIR OF SUDAN and GADDAFI THE
THEN PRESIDENT OF LIBYA ,both were indicted by the ICC prosecutor the
then MORENO OCAMPO, this new treaty law position has been challenged
on the ground that it impeaches the principle of sovereignty ,in fact
26 Van Dervort T , International law and organization, sage (1986) at 766
27 Op cit article 27

currently majority of the African leaders have passed a resolution 28


calling for amendment29 in that the sitting presidents must be
immune from prosecution, AU averred that indicting sitting head
of states undermines the countrys peace, as well as countrys
reconciliation and reform process, AU considered Kenyattas
indictment and that of his deputy furthermore the ICC Is facing
great criticism especially from African leaders who are accusing
the court of targeting only Africans that it is influenced by
certain elements as a mean of
exercising hegemony over
them ,they argued that since its inception in 2002 the court has
only
indicted and tried only African leaders, however the
reasons forwarded by the AU against ICC may not be sustained
on the basis that before ICC Milosevic for Yugoslavian and other
non African officials were tried under such international ad hoc
tribunal, even the composition of the court is fairly constituted
as among the 18 judges of the court 5 are Africans , the vice
president is African from Botswana, the current prosecutor Fatou
Besounda is a Gambian ,thereby the court is African court, African
leaders only wish to conceal impunity so as to escape justice as they
always manipulate and stay in power as a shield against prosecution for
commission of international crimes of jus cogens nature,

10
hence I disagree with their propositions, nonetheless these challenges
that ICC facing now can be chronologically traced from Nuremberg
tribunal as it recognized these principles which are under contest hence
it has been viewed as having sowed the seed of controversy in
international law.
3.2: The Nuremberg trials have been deduced as victor justice,
here the argument is that the allied powers established the tribunal by
the London charter which was a mean of expression of vengeance
towards their defeated German enemy, this was manifested even by the
composition of the tribunal where it was composed of only the members
28 African Union summit resolution 88 at Addis Ababa Aug /2013 Ethiopia
29 Amendment of article 27 that grants jurisdiction to the ICC prosecutor to indict
sitting presidents

from the victor powers which had overwhelming interests in the outcome
of the case, a jurist 30 argued that if justice was to be seen done in
Nuremberg trial the court would have been composed of neutral
arbitrators like the Swiss, the Swedish but the prosecuting
countries, again having formed the composition of court was a gloss
manifestation of bias, thereby even the judgments were affected by bias
underscoring the view that its relevance stand discredited thus lowering
its probative force in international arena.
3.3:
The ex post facto character of the trials for example
accepting aggression as crime under international law which was neither
founded in any instrument nor defined before, was applied to the
defendants in the Nuremberg trials , indeed this violated the principle
nullum crimen nulla peona sine lege ,this maxim carries object that an
individual must not be held responsible for conduct which at time they
took place did not amount to a crime, thus the trials have been held to
have suffered from retrospectivity, modern jurists critiquing the trials
argued that it is upon that backdrop that the draftsmen of the Rome
statute realized the misnomer committed by the drafter of the London
charter and totally outlawed the ex post facto principle under article22
and 2431 which together contain the spirit that a person must not
be held criminally responsible for conducts committed at the
time and in place did not constitutes a crime. Hence such criticism
serves to discredit Nuremberg trials.
3.4: It is unfortunate to note that ever since Nuremberg tribunal handed
down its verdicts ,it deterrent purpose has not been effectuated as
genocide and other shocking international crimes have been taking
place in most part of the world , for example such

11
incidents have been seen happening in Uganda ,Bosnia, Cambodia
Kuwait ,turkey , the ethnic cleansing that occurred in Rwanda and
Yugoslavia, these horrible events that have shocked the conscience of
30 Chief justice of united states of 1980-90
31 Rome statute of 2002

mankind seemingly show that Nuremberg deterrent purpose has never


been realized up to date.

4:

In conclusion

therefore international law has been


influenced by Nuremberg trials as they established various principles,
like individual criminal responsibility, the concept of crimes against
humanity, development of IHL, and laid the foundation of establishment
of ad hoc tribunals and eventually ICC nevertheless, Nuremberg trials
have been criticized on grounds that it impeaches the doctrine of state
sovereignty as discussed above.

12
TABLE OF CONTENT

Table
of
content.i
Abstract.
ii
Acronyms
iii
Introduction
.. 1
1.1
General
understanding
..1

of

Nuremberg

1.2
Definition
of
law.2
RELEVANCE

OF

NUREMBERG

TRIALS

TO

trials

international
INTERNATIONAL

LAW2

2.1 Defined crimes


reference...3

against

humanity

for

future

2.2
Inspired
the
formulation
of
UDHR.
.4 2.3Recognition of human right
intervention4
2.4
Retraction
of
ex
post
principle.5

facto

2.5 Credence of the principle of individual criminal


responsibility..6
2.6 Emergence of international
ICC7

ad

hoc

courts

and

2.7
Development
of
IHL.8
3CRITICISM
OR
IRRELEVANCE
TRIALS.9

OF

3.1
Robbing
immunity
to
officials.10

NUREMBERG
state

3.2
Victor
justice
11
3.3
Undermining
the
principle
facto.11

of

3.4
Failure
to
effectuate
purpose.11

its

ex

post

deterrent

Conclusion

12

i
CRONYMS

International
law..IHL

humanitarian

African
Union
AU
International
criminal
Rwanda...ICTR

tribunal

for

for

former

International
court..ICC

criminal

International
criminal
YugoslaviaICTY

tribunal

Universal
Declaration
of
1948..UDHR

Human

Right

of

United
Nation
..UN

International
Court
JusticeICJ

iii

NKUMBA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW

INDEX NO:

COURSE UNIT:

2011/AUG/LLB/B9436

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

of

INTAKE:
COURSE LEVEL:

AUG /2011
DEGREE

COURSE FACILITATOR:

MS JUSTINE N. KABUGU

QUESTION:

What is the relevance of the Nuremberg trials in international law?

REFERENCES
1 FUNDAMENTAL PERSPECTIVES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW 4th
EDITION BY WILLIAM R SLOMANSON
2 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD ORDER PROBLEMS BY
FRANK X NJENGE
3 INTERNATIONAL LAW BY MALCOLM N SHAW
4 BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY
5 DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW BY
GEOGORY H FOX AND BRAD RUTH

6 THE DYNAMICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY PAUL F DIETHI


AND CHARLOTTE KU
7

INTERNATIONAL LAW 2ND EDITION BY GURDIP SINGH

CASE LAW

STATUTES

10 UN CHARTER
11 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES 1969
12 THE ROME STAUTE

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen