The Argument for Criminal Liability

  • Hans Petter Graver
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Under international human rights law, states have an obligation to prosecute perpetrators of serious human rights violations. It has since long been shown that also judges can be responsible under international law for atrocities committed as part of the application and enforcement of municipal law. This was first established by the US Military Tribunal against leaders of the Nazi legal system and has since been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. Under municipal law, however, the picture is more complex. The legislation on judicial responsibility for unlawful judging varies from country to country, as do definitions of “unlawful” in relation to judicial activity.

Keywords

Rome Statute Criminal Liability Transitional Justice Judicial Decision Judicial Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bader KS (1948) Das Urteil im Nürnberger Juristenprozeß. Deutsche Rechts-Zeitschrift 40–43Google Scholar
  2. Fraser D (2012) Evil law, evil lawyers? From the justice case to the torture memos. Jurisprudence 3(2):391–428Google Scholar
  3. Freudiger K (2002) Die juristische Aufarbeitung von NS-Verbrechen. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  4. Friedrich J (1983) Freispruch für die Nazi Justiz Die Urteile gegen NS-Richter seit 1948 Eine Dokumentation. Rowolt Taschenbuchverlag, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  5. Greene NL (1995) A perspective on “Nazis in the Courtroom”. Brooklyn Law Rev 61:1122–1129Google Scholar
  6. Lippman M (1997–1998) The prosecution of Josef Altstoetter et al.: law, lawyers and justice in the Third Reich. Dickinson J Int Law 16:343–433Google Scholar
  7. Nøkleby B (1996) Skutt blir den … Tysk bruk av dødsstraff i Norge 1940–1945. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, OsloGoogle Scholar
  8. Pereira AW (2005) Political (in)justice authoritarianism and the rule of law in Brazil, Chile and Argentina. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (Kindle edition)Google Scholar
  9. Perels J (1997) Der Nürnberger Juristenprozess im Kontext der Nachkriegsgeschichte, Vortrag gehalten am 4.12.1997 in der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe Universität Frankfurt/MainGoogle Scholar
  10. Radbruch G (1948) Des Reichministeriums Ruhm und Ende, Zum Nürnberger Juristenurteil. Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung col. 64Google Scholar
  11. Sands P (2008) Torture team deception, cruelty and the compromise of law. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Shaman JM (1990) Judicial immunity from civil and criminal liability. San Diego Law Rev 27(12):4Google Scholar
  13. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, vol III, the Justice Case, Washington, 1951Google Scholar
  14. Weinke A (2011) Ehemalige Wehrmachtrichter in der SBZ/DDR Elitenaustausch und verhinderte Aufarbeitung. In: Perels J, og Wette W (Hg.) Mit Reinem Gewissen Wehrmachtsrichter in der Bundesrepublik und ihre Opfer. Aufbau Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Werke G (2001) Rückwirkungsverbot und Staatskriminalität. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3001–3008Google Scholar
  16. Wilke C (2009) Reconsecrating the temple of justice: invocations of civilization and humanity in the Nuremberg Justice Case. Can J Law Soc 24:181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Petter Graver
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations