Discuss the analysis and significance of the abduction and trial of Eichmann from an international law perspective, with reference to legal writing
$7.95
8 word format
document in english
international law
presentation
published 12/04/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 17 times
Summary“The very concept of individual accountability – indeed – the very idea that an act could be ‘criminal’ was antithetical to International law during much of its history […] With narrow exceptions, individuals held no rights and bore no responsibilities under International law, provided some protection for individuals through the laws of war, but these were derivative of the rights that states had against other states” declared the Harvard Law Review . Further on, it deduced from the statements above that “the costs of such lacunae were demonstrated by the atrocities of World War II. […] the failure to prosecute after earlier wars create[d] a sense of impunity on the part of war criminals” . The Nuremberg Trials put an end to the ‘golden age’ of/for war criminals by initiating the development of international criminal accountability . Between 1946 and 1960, “similar proceedings” confirmed the principles established by the Nuremberg precedents, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, they didn’t raise new legal aspects; either because “they involve[d] trials of former Axis nationals by courts of countries that had been occupied during the war” like in the major Nuremberg trials, or the “acts tried were committed on the territory of the adjudicating state and proceedings were conducted according to the lex loci” , that is, mainly, German law applied by German courts.
It is necessary to bear in mind this context in order to fully appreciate the significance of the Eichmann case. Unlike the cases that followed the Nuremberg Major War Criminals Trial, the Eichmann didn’t involve the ex-Allies or the countries occupied by the Nazi military forces, it was not explicitly supported by the international community, not through the United Nations Organisation, neither Eichmann nor the victims were of Israeli nationality… In short/in brief, there are many brand new/original features that make the case likely not only to set a precedent, but also to mark a turning point in International criminal law. The Eichmann trial started/launched the debate on what the priorities of International Criminal law should be and what procedural concessions the international community can tolerate in order to achieve the main objectives without endangering the accomplishment of Justice.
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” to Louis Henkin in 1968 but one can argue that the end justifies the means somehow . Then, the trial in itself has to be analysed 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.
It is necessary to bear in mind this context in order to fully appreciate the significance of the Eichmann case. Unlike the cases that followed the Nuremberg Major War Criminals Trial, the Eichmann didn’t involve the ex-Allies or the countries occupied by the Nazi military forces, it was not explicitly supported by the international community, not through the United Nations Organisation, neither Eichmann nor the victims were of Israeli nationality… In short/in brief, there are many brand new/original features that make the case likely not only to set a precedent, but also to mark a turning point in International criminal law. The Eichmann trial started/launched the debate on what the priorities of International Criminal law should be and what procedural concessions the international community can tolerate in order to achieve the main objectives without endangering the accomplishment of Justice.
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” to Louis Henkin in 1968 but one can argue that the end justifies the means somehow . Then, the trial in itself has to be analysed 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.
Table of Contents
- The abduction of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina to Israel: ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree?
- The Facts
- Their Justification
- Procedural and substantive aspects of the trial: how the Eichmann trial launched a rich debate on many International criminal law issues
- The Jurisdiction of the Israeli ad hoc court
- Nature of the Law applied, line of defence and procedural issues
Latest in the category international law
knowledge network