Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

territory for labor purposes is only to be considered as a war crime, but that removal becomes a crime against humanity when it assumes the penal character of a transportation of prisoners. Yet the question arises whether, beyond this, according to the Charter, any removal of the population is punishable as a war crime, without considering whether it occurs for deployment of labor or for other reasons. According to the text of the Charter, the latter seems at first sight to be the case, as it renders punishable "removal for slave labor, or for any other purpose." Upon closer examination, however, it becomes evident that this rule does not seem to be meant in such a sense, as there are cases in which a removal is not only consistent with international law but even becomes imperative.

Accordingly, the Charter should only be understood to mean that the prerequisite of the punishable is not just plain "removal" but the composite concept "removal for slave labor" and "removal for any other purpose".

The clause "or for any other purpose" should be understood so as to mean only that an illegal purpose corresponding to slave labor exists. If removal of any kind was to be made punishable, then the qualifying addition "for slave labor or for any other purpose" would be contradictory to common sense.

This identification is important for the defendant Sauckel, as otherwise the existence of deportation classified as a war crime would be evident from the acts admitted by him. Just as for the various kinds of deportation, the difference between the kinds of slave labor according to the Charter should be clarified. Here too a clue for the interpretation is given by the terminology of the different linguistic versions of the text, but not because of their clarity and consistency, but by their very opposite.

The English version speaks of "slave labor" as a war crime and of "enslavement" as a crime against humanity; the French version states "travaux forces" and "reduction en esclavage"; the Russian version accordingly "rabstvo" (-slavery) and "poraboschtschenie" (-enslavement). It is not discernible how the chosen terms differentiate in re.

Starting from the fact that labor inconsistent with humanity must be carried out under more severe conditions than other labor, and considering that "slave labor" appears to be the severest form of labor conditions, one sees that no definition can be derived from this terminology of the Charter, rather that an ethical valuation and stigmatization of the incident is intended. oglaso

Accordingly, an objective division of the kinds of labor should be carried out, independent of the terminology, by considering

[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

The Prosecution, when judging the labor conscription as a war crime, bases it on the definitions of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, as well as on the agreements and rules of war and the criminal codes of the countries concerned. If it is shown that the labor conscription is permitted by international law, then a judicial inquiry into the penal regulations is, of course, not necessary. The Hague Convention on Land Warfare can be considered as basis for the law of warfare with which we are concerned here. Whether it was recognized by all states involved here is of practically little importance as, inasmuch as it was not recognized or cannot be directly applied, there is a gap in the international law which is closed in accordance with the principles of necessity for belligerent and with the duty for staying within the boundaries of humanity. The principles of international law as established in the Hague Convention on Land Warfare are in all cases an important guidance.

The Prosecution quotes in the first place Article 46 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare which is to safeguard the fundamental rights of the population. It is typical of forced labor that it restricts liberty, but it is exactly this basic right which is not protected by this article. Jmsbasicb oda vd borebro

If the Hague Convention on Land Warfare is examined for a definite rule concerning deportation and forced labor it will be realized that there is no such regulation. Just as in the sphere of air warfare and the use of new weapons, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare could not deal with questions, which at the time of its drafting were far from the mind of the contracting parties. The first world war was still fought between 2 armies with already prepared material and the fight should be ended after it was used up. The idea of a long war which was a war of material and which required a continuous production with all available labor was for the Hague Convention on Land Warfare no problem to be discussed. Tolliboning" as Todel

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

Article 52 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare which deals with the principle of the right for requisition touches on the matter under discussion, but it can be seen that the rules deal only with the merely local requirements of the army which appears to army happears to be equipped and which has only additional local requirements. l requirements.

It is characteristic, for the purely local meaning, that the authority for requisitions is entrusted to the local commanders in contrast to Article 51 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare which permits only an independent commanding general to impose compulsory contributions. The literature about the right for

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »