|
|
|---|
|
While the winning Allies may have a claim to jurisdiction over crimes committed in countries other than Germany, there is one unquivocal area where the Allies did not have jurisdiction. That area is alledged crimes committed within Germany. Often unnoticed is that there was a functioning government in Germany at the time of surrender. This was a valid and legitimate government and it was recognized by the Allies. It was recognized as it negotiated the surrender of Germany. Later the Allies abolished that government. That is a crime they would try at Nuremberg. More generally, the judge may not consider something a crime of which the judge is guilty. The basis for jurisdiction, the supreme authority for the International Military Tribunal is, as stated in the London Agreement, the Moscow Declaration issued by Britain, the US and Russia. Despite any pretensions to the contrary, that is the only stated authority. In this matter, one should not confuse the authority to prosecute with the laws being prosecuted. While the IMT did invoke prior conventions of war, treaties and so forth, those did not provide international power to try treaty violations. Violations were to be tried under the national laws of which the alledged violators were citizens. To put it another way, nations have different types of laws. And nations assign different courts to hear the different types of laws. A clear example is that a traffic court can not hear appeals of a murder conviction. Thus without formal constitution as the judicial authority the Tribunal had only self-declared juridiction not a priori jurisdiction.
|