Abstract
This article considers the question of holding foreign ministers responsible for war crimes. A recent decision by the International Court of Justice, the Arrest Warrant case, Congo v Belgium, appears to have diluted the developing international customary rule that suspends immunity when a grave international crime has been committed. This article suggests that the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal decision in the Ribbentrop Case constitutes a precedent for how international criminal law should interpret the nature and scope of the immunity for foreign ministers. As a successful prosecution of Hitler’s former foreign minister, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to this aspect of the Ribbentrop Case given that it was a path-breaking decision. For that reason, the present article is a case study of this example where prosecutors at an international criminal tribunal were able to successfully prosecute a foreign minister in a manner that may, therefore, still prove instructive given the existing legal position following the Arrest Warrant Case. The article considers in detail how Ribbentrop’s defence lawyers constructed a series of arguments that the prosecution were, however, largely able to demolish through resort to a variety of strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Dr Michael Salter is Professor of Law at the Lancashire Law School, University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom; Dr Lorie Charlesworth is Senior Lecturer at the Law School, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salter, M., Charlesworth, L. Prosecuting and Defending Diplomats as War Criminals: Ribbentrop at the Nuremberg Trials. Liverpool Law Rev 27, 67–96 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-005-5348-z
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-005-5348-z