header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

The individual under international criminal law (Pt 1)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
14 July 2023 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 8033 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal , International justice
printer mail-detail
130190
In the first of a two-part series, Simon Parsons charts the development of individual liability for international crimes
  • Prior to 1945, there was little evidence that crimes against peace and crimes against humanity had crystallised as international crimes as part of customary international law.
  • The Nuremberg trials laid the foundations of modern international criminal law based on individual criminal responsibility.

This article explores the lack of individual liability for international crime up until 1945. It is noted that the Nuremberg war crime trials of leading Nazi officials laid the groundwork for personal international criminal liability for a criminal war, and for the international criminal justice process in which those responsible for such a war are held responsible. It is hoped, one day, this same process may be applied against the major war criminal Vladimir Putin and his subordinates.

International criminal law pre-1945

The evidence for individual criminal liability for international crime in this period is limited. However, the conviction of Peter von Hagenbach

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll