# Foundational texts — Nuremberg + Tokyo

The instruments that may be cited from project knowledge when present. If not in project knowledge, retrieve from the sources listed in `authoritative-sources.md` before citing.

## Nuremberg side

### 1. The London Agreement (8 August 1945)

**Full title:** Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis.

**Parties:** United States of America, Provisional Government of the French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

**Treaty citation:** 82 U.N.T.S. 280; 59 Stat. 1544; E.A.S. No. 472.

**Function:** establishes the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and annexes its Charter.

### 2. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal ("IMT Charter")

**Annexed to** the London Agreement. The operative text the IMT applied.

**Key articles:**
- **Article 1.** Establishment of the Tribunal.
- **Article 6.** Subject-matter jurisdiction:
  - **6(a) Crimes against peace** — planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
  - **6(b) War crimes** — violations of the laws or customs of war
  - **6(c) Crimes against humanity** — with a nexus clause ("in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal")
- **Article 7.** No immunity for heads of State or responsible officials.
- **Article 8.** Superior orders not a defence, but may be considered in mitigation.
- **Articles 9-10.** Criminal organisations — the Tribunal may declare an organisation criminal.
- **Articles 14-15.** Chief Prosecutors (one from each signatory).
- **Article 19.** "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence."
- **Article 26.** Judgment final and not subject to review.

### 3. Control Council Law No. 10 (20 December 1945)

**Full title:** Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, Allied Control Council, Law No. 10.

**Function:** legal basis for prosecutions by each occupying power in its own zone — specifically, the twelve subsequent NMT trials.

**Doctrinally significant difference:** Article II(1)(c) on crimes against humanity **drops the IMT Charter's nexus to armed conflict**. The NMT Justice Case and Einsatzgruppen Case develop this; the doctrinal line runs forward to the modern formulations in the ICTY Statute, the ICTR Statute, the Rome Statute, and the ECCC Law.

---

## Tokyo side

### 4. The Special Proclamation by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (19 January 1946)

**Issued by:** General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), under the authority delegated to him by the Moscow Conference of December 1945 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States (October 1945, circulated to the Far Eastern Advisory Commission).

**Function:** establishes the International Military Tribunal for the Far East ("for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals in the Far East") and approves its Charter.

**Form:** unlike the IMT, the IMTFE was not established by a treaty among Allied powers. It was established by a unilateral proclamation of the Supreme Commander, in pursuance of the policy decisions of the Allies. This is a significant institutional difference, and one of the bases of the *nullum crimen / nulla poena* objection developed in the Pal dissent.

### 5. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East ("Tokyo Charter" / "IMTFE Charter")

**Issued by:** MacArthur, 19 January 1946 (with subsequent amendments).

**Function:** the operative text the IMTFE applied.

**Key articles:**
- **Article 1.** Establishment and constitution of the Tribunal.
- **Article 2.** Members (judges) — eleven, one from each of the signatories of the Instrument of Surrender plus India and the Philippines.
- **Article 3.** Officers (including the President, appointed by MacArthur).
- **Article 5.** Subject-matter jurisdiction — three classes of crime:
  - **Class A — Crimes against peace** (planning, preparation, initiation or waging of declared or undeclared war of aggression, or war in violation of international law, treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy)
  - **Class B — Conventional war crimes** (violations of the laws or customs of war)
  - **Class C — Crimes against humanity** (murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; persecutions on political or racial grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal)
- **Article 6.** Responsibility of the accused — neither official position nor superior orders relieve from responsibility (combines the IMT Charter Articles 7 and 8).
- **Article 9.** Rules of procedure adopted by the Tribunal.
- **Article 12.** Trial in absentia possible.
- **Article 16.** Penalties — death or other punishment as the Tribunal determines.
- **Article 17.** Judgment and sentence by majority of members; review by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (a feature absent at the IMT — significant).

**Doctrinally significant differences from the IMT Charter:**

1. **Class A / B / C terminology** — the Tokyo Charter uses "Class A / B / C" where the IMT Charter uses "(a) / (b) / (c)". The substance is parallel but the terminology is distinct, and the **Class A proceedings** at Tokyo dominated the trial (most convictions rested principally on crimes against peace). Cite the Tokyo terminology when discussing the IMTFE.

2. **No criminal organisations doctrine at Tokyo** — the Tokyo Charter does not include the IMT Charter's Articles 9-10 mechanism for declaring organisations criminal.

3. **SCAP review power (Art. 17)** — sentences at Tokyo were subject to review by MacArthur, which he exercised (he confirmed all sentences with one modification). At the IMT, the Judgment was final (IMT Charter Art. 26).

4. **No Soviet judge had veto** — unlike at the IMT (where Soviet practice diverged from common-law procedure), the Tokyo Charter centralised authority in MacArthur.

### 6. The Rules of Procedure of the IMTFE (25 April 1946)

Announced shortly before the opening of proceedings, with subsequent amendments. Governs the conduct of the trial.

---

## Cross-cutting / UN-side instruments

### 7. UNGA Resolution 95(I) (11 December 1946)

**Full title:** Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal.

**Function:** the General Assembly "affirms the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal", and directs the Committee on the codification of international law to formulate them.

**Why this matters:** Resolution 95(I) is widely read as evidence that the Nuremberg Principles form part of customary international law — see *Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann* (1962), 36 ILR 277, and the ICTY in *Tadić*. It is the bridge from a one-off Allied tribunal to a body of customary international criminal law binding on all States.

**Note:** Resolution 95(I) addresses the *Nürnberg* Tribunal expressly; it is silent on the IMTFE. The status of Tokyo-side doctrine as customary international law travels primarily through Resolution 95(I) and the ILC's subsequent work, not through a Tokyo-specific UN affirmation.

### 8. UNGA Resolution 177(II) (21 November 1947)

**Full title:** Formulation of the Principles recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.

**Function:** directs the International Law Commission to (a) formulate the Nuremberg Principles and (b) prepare a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind.

### 9. The Nuremberg Principles (ILC, 1950)

**Full title:** Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with Commentaries, International Law Commission, 1950.

**Source:** *Yearbook of the International Law Commission*, 1950, Vol. II, paragraphs 95-127.

**The seven Principles:**

- **Principle I.** Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
- **Principle II.** Internal law does not relieve from international responsibility.
- **Principle III.** Head-of-State or government-official position does not relieve from responsibility.
- **Principle IV.** Superior orders does not relieve, provided a moral choice was possible.
- **Principle V.** Right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
- **Principle VI.** The three categories: crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity (each developed in sub-paragraphs).
- **Principle VII.** Complicity is a crime under international law.

**Status:** the ILC's formulation was not formally adopted by the General Assembly (the Sixth Committee was divided on the wording). It is nevertheless treated as the canonical statement of the Principles in scholarship and in subsequent judicial practice. Cite the Principles by number; identify the source (*ILC Yearbook* 1950, Vol. II).

**Note:** the ILC's formulation derives from the Nuremberg corpus but is *equally* engaged with by Tokyo scholarship — the seven Principles are the codification of the post-WWII heritage as a whole, not Nuremberg-exclusive.

---

## Working with foundational texts in project knowledge

Recommended workflow for substantial Nuremberg / Tokyo research:

1. Add the **IMT Charter** (with the London Agreement) and the **Tokyo Charter** (with MacArthur's Special Proclamation) to project knowledge.
2. Add **Control Council Law No. 10** if the work touches the subsequent NMT trials.
3. Add **UNGA Resolution 95(I)** and the **ILC 1950 Nuremberg Principles** if the work touches customary international law / doctrinal genealogy.
4. The skill will then cite from project knowledge for these foundational texts, and reserve `web_fetch` for case-specific propositions from the Judgments.

The **Avalon Project** hosts the full IMT texts. The **University of Virginia IMTFE Digital Collection** is the parallel for the Tokyo Charter. The **UN Audiovisual Library** hosts the UNGA Resolutions and the ILC formulation.