Signed at San Francisco, 26 June, 1945.
Entered into force on 24 October, 1945
Preamble
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
CHAPTER I: PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Atlantic Charter
The Atlantic Charter was the product of the Atlantic Conference, which was an historic meeting between President Franklin D.Roosevelt and British Prime Mister Winston Churchill. Meeting from August -12, 1941, in great secrecy aboard the U.S. heavy cruiser USS Augusta and the British battle cruiser HMS Prince of Wales, the two leaders and their staffs discussed the general strategy of the war against the Axis Powers. The major public outcome of the Atlantic Conference was the Atlantic Charter, issued by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill on August 14, 1941. The Atlantic Charter formed the basis of the United Nations Charter.
__________________________________________________
Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941:
The following statement signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain is released for the information of the Press:
The President of the United States and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, have met at sea.
They have been accompanied by officials of their two Governments, including high ranking officers of the Military, Naval and Air Services The whole problem of the supply of munitions of war, as provided by the Lease-Lend Act, for the armed forces of the United States and for those countries actively engaged in resisting aggression has been further examined.
Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Supply of the British Government, has joined in these conferences. He is going to proceed to Washington to discuss further details with appropriate officials of the United States Government. These conferences will also cover the supply problems of the Soviet Union.
The President and the Prime Minister have had several conferences They have considered the dangers to world civilization arising from the policies of military domination by conquest upon which the Hitlerite government of Germany and other governments associated therewith have embarked, and have made clear the stress which their countries are respectively taking for their safety in the face of these dangers.
They have agreed upon the following joint declaration:
--------------------------------------------------------
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;
Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;
Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
Signed by: Franklin D. Roosevelt & Winston S. Churchill
__________________________________________________
Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941:
The following statement signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain is released for the information of the Press:
The President of the United States and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, have met at sea.
They have been accompanied by officials of their two Governments, including high ranking officers of the Military, Naval and Air Services The whole problem of the supply of munitions of war, as provided by the Lease-Lend Act, for the armed forces of the United States and for those countries actively engaged in resisting aggression has been further examined.
Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Supply of the British Government, has joined in these conferences. He is going to proceed to Washington to discuss further details with appropriate officials of the United States Government. These conferences will also cover the supply problems of the Soviet Union.
The President and the Prime Minister have had several conferences They have considered the dangers to world civilization arising from the policies of military domination by conquest upon which the Hitlerite government of Germany and other governments associated therewith have embarked, and have made clear the stress which their countries are respectively taking for their safety in the face of these dangers.
They have agreed upon the following joint declaration:
--------------------------------------------------------
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;
Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;
Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
Signed by: Franklin D. Roosevelt & Winston S. Churchill
Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points Program of the World's Peace
In January 1918, ten months before the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appeared before a joint session of Congress and made this address suggesting possible peace terms to end the four-year-old conflict in which soldiers from England, France, Germany, Russia and many other nations had died by the millions. The United States under Wilson had remained out of the war until 1917. The Fourteen Points outlined in this speech served as both the basis for peace and the hopeful establishment of a better post-war world at the conclusion of "the culminating and final war for human liberty."
_____________________________________________________
Gentlemen of the Congress:
Once more, as repeatedly before, the spokesmen of the Central Empires have indicated their desire to discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace. Parleys have been in progress at Brest-Litovsk between Russian representatives and representatives of the Central Powers to which the attention of all the belligerents has been invited for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be possible to extend these parleys into a general conference with regard to terms of peace and settlement.
The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace, but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all, either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied--every province, every city, every point of vantage as a permanent addition to their territories and their power.
It is a reasonable conjecture that the general principles of settlement which they at first suggested originated with the more liberal statesmen of Germany and Austria, the men who have begun to feel the force of their own peoples' thought and purpose, while the concrete terms of actual settlement came from the military leaders who have no thought but to keep what they have got. The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination.
The whole incident is full of significance. It is also full of perplexity. With whom are the Russian representatives dealing? For whom are the representatives of the Central Empires speaking? Are they speaking for the majorities of their respective parliaments or for the minority parties, that military and imperialistic minority which has so far dominated their whole policy and controlled the affairs of Turkey and of the Balkan States which have felt obliged to become their associates in this war?
The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors, and all the world lies been audience, as was desired. To whom have we been listening, then? To those who speak the spirit and intention of the resolutions of the German Reichstag of the 9th of July last, the spirit and intention of the liberal leaders and parties of Germany, or to those who resist and defy that spirit and intention and insist upon conquest and subjugation? Or are we listening, in fact, to both, unreconciled and in open and hopeless contradiction? These are very serious and pregnant questions. Upon the answer to them depends the peace of the world.
But whatever the results of the parleys at Brest-Litovsk, whatever the confusions of counsel and of purpose in the utterances of the spokesmen of the Central Empires, they have again attempted to acquaint the world with their objects in the war and have again challenged their adversaries to say what their objects are and what sort of settlement they would deem just and satisfactory. There is no good reason why that challenge should not be responded to, and responded to with the utmost candor. We did not wait for it. Not once, but again and again we have laid our whole thought and purpose before the world, not in general terms only, but each time with sufficient definition to make it clear what sort of definite terms of settlement must necessarily spring out of them. Within the last week Mr. Lloyd George has spoken with admirable candor and in admirable spirit for the people and Government of Great Britain.
There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies. The issues of life and death hang upon these definitions. No statesman who has the least conception of his responsibility ought for a moment to permit himself to continue this tragical and appalling outpouring of blood and treasure unless he is sure beyond a peradventure that the objects of the vital sacrifice are part and parcel of the very life of society and that the people for whom he speaks think them right and imperative as he does.
There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. They are prostrate and all but helpless, it would seem, before the grim power of Germany, which has hitherto known no relenting and no pity. Their power, apparently, is shattered. And yet their soul is not subservient. They will not yield either in principle or in action. Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind; and they have refused to compound their ideals or desert others that they themselves may be safe.
They call to us to say what it is that we desire, in what, if in anything, our purpose and our spirit differ from theirs; and I believe that the people of the United States would wish me to respond, with utter simplicity and frankness. Whether their present leaders believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hope that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace.
It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow now or at any other time the objects it has in view.
We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured once for all against their recurrence.
What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world, as against force and selfish aggression.
All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us.
The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this:
1. Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest points consistent with domestic safety.
5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy, and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.
7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.
8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.
9. A re-adjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.
10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.
11. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.
12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.
In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right, we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.
For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove.
We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade, if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing.
We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world--the new world in which we now live--instead of a place of mastery.
Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination.
We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak.
Unless this principle be made its foundation, no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle, and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess. The moral climax of this, the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test.
Woodrow Wilson - January 8, 1918
_____________________________________________________
Gentlemen of the Congress:
Once more, as repeatedly before, the spokesmen of the Central Empires have indicated their desire to discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace. Parleys have been in progress at Brest-Litovsk between Russian representatives and representatives of the Central Powers to which the attention of all the belligerents has been invited for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be possible to extend these parleys into a general conference with regard to terms of peace and settlement.
The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace, but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all, either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied--every province, every city, every point of vantage as a permanent addition to their territories and their power.
It is a reasonable conjecture that the general principles of settlement which they at first suggested originated with the more liberal statesmen of Germany and Austria, the men who have begun to feel the force of their own peoples' thought and purpose, while the concrete terms of actual settlement came from the military leaders who have no thought but to keep what they have got. The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination.
The whole incident is full of significance. It is also full of perplexity. With whom are the Russian representatives dealing? For whom are the representatives of the Central Empires speaking? Are they speaking for the majorities of their respective parliaments or for the minority parties, that military and imperialistic minority which has so far dominated their whole policy and controlled the affairs of Turkey and of the Balkan States which have felt obliged to become their associates in this war?
The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors, and all the world lies been audience, as was desired. To whom have we been listening, then? To those who speak the spirit and intention of the resolutions of the German Reichstag of the 9th of July last, the spirit and intention of the liberal leaders and parties of Germany, or to those who resist and defy that spirit and intention and insist upon conquest and subjugation? Or are we listening, in fact, to both, unreconciled and in open and hopeless contradiction? These are very serious and pregnant questions. Upon the answer to them depends the peace of the world.
But whatever the results of the parleys at Brest-Litovsk, whatever the confusions of counsel and of purpose in the utterances of the spokesmen of the Central Empires, they have again attempted to acquaint the world with their objects in the war and have again challenged their adversaries to say what their objects are and what sort of settlement they would deem just and satisfactory. There is no good reason why that challenge should not be responded to, and responded to with the utmost candor. We did not wait for it. Not once, but again and again we have laid our whole thought and purpose before the world, not in general terms only, but each time with sufficient definition to make it clear what sort of definite terms of settlement must necessarily spring out of them. Within the last week Mr. Lloyd George has spoken with admirable candor and in admirable spirit for the people and Government of Great Britain.
There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies. The issues of life and death hang upon these definitions. No statesman who has the least conception of his responsibility ought for a moment to permit himself to continue this tragical and appalling outpouring of blood and treasure unless he is sure beyond a peradventure that the objects of the vital sacrifice are part and parcel of the very life of society and that the people for whom he speaks think them right and imperative as he does.
There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. They are prostrate and all but helpless, it would seem, before the grim power of Germany, which has hitherto known no relenting and no pity. Their power, apparently, is shattered. And yet their soul is not subservient. They will not yield either in principle or in action. Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind; and they have refused to compound their ideals or desert others that they themselves may be safe.
They call to us to say what it is that we desire, in what, if in anything, our purpose and our spirit differ from theirs; and I believe that the people of the United States would wish me to respond, with utter simplicity and frankness. Whether their present leaders believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hope that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace.
It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow now or at any other time the objects it has in view.
We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured once for all against their recurrence.
What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world, as against force and selfish aggression.
All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us.
The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this:
1. Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest points consistent with domestic safety.
5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy, and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.
7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.
8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.
9. A re-adjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.
10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.
11. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.
12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.
In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right, we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.
For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove.
We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade, if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing.
We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world--the new world in which we now live--instead of a place of mastery.
Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination.
We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak.
Unless this principle be made its foundation, no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle, and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess. The moral climax of this, the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test.
Woodrow Wilson - January 8, 1918
MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION. Convention on Rights and Duties of States
Convention signed at Montevideo December 26, 1933; Senate advice and consent to ratification, with a reservation, June 15, 1934; Ratified by the President of the United States, with a reservation, June 29, 1934; Ratification of the United States deposited with the Pan American Union July 13, 1934; Entered into force December 26, 1934; Proclaimed by the President of the United States January 18, 1935; Article 8 reaffirmed by protocol of December 23, 1936.
49 Stat. 3097;
Treaty Series 881
CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States:
Wishing to conclude a Convention on Rights and Duties of States, have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries:
Honduras:
MIGUEL PAZ BARAONA
AUGUSTO C. COELLO
LUIS BOGRAN
United States of America:
CORDELL HULL
ALEXANDER W. WEDDELL
J. REUBEN CLARK
J. BUTLER WRIGHT
SPRUILLE BRADEN
Miss SOPHONISBA P. BRECKINRIDGE
El Salvador:
HECTOR DAVID CASTRO
ARTURO RAMON AVILA
J. CIPRIANO CASTRO
Dominican Republic:
TULIO M. CESTERO
Haiti:
JUSTIN BARAU
FRANCIS SALGADO
ANTOINE PIERRE-PAUL
EDMOND MANGONES
Argentina:
CARLOS SAAVEDRA LAMAS
JUAN F. CAFFERATA
RAMON S. CASTILLO
CARLOS BREBBIA
ISIDORO RUIZ MORENO
LUIS A. PODESTA COSTA
RAUL PREBISCH
DANIEL ANTOKOLETZ
Venezuela:
CESAR ZUMETA
LUIS CHURTON
JOSE RAFAEL MONTTLLA
Uruguay:
ALBERTO MANE
JUAN JOSE AMEZAGA
JOSE G. ANTUNA
JUAN CARLOS BLANCO
Senora SOFIA A. V. DE DEMICHELI
MARTIN R. ECHEGOYEN
LUIS ALBERTO DE HERRERA
PEDRO MANINI RIOS
MATEO MARQUES CASTRO
RODOLFO MEZZERA
OCTAVIO MORAT6
LUIS MORQUIO
TEOFILO PINEYRO CHAIN
DARDO REGULES
JOSE SERRATO
JOSE PEDRO VARELA
Paraguay:
JUSTO PASTOR BENITEZ
GERONIMO RIART
HORACIO A. FERNANDEZ
Senorita MARIA F. GONZALEZ
Mexico:
JOSE MANUEL PUIG CASAURANC
ALFONSO REYES
BASILIO VADILLO
GENARO V. VASQUEZ
ROMEO ORTEGA
MANUEL J. SIERRA
EDUARDO SUAREZ
Panama:
J. D. AROSEMENA
EDUARDO E. HOLGUIN
OSCAR R. MULLER
MAGIN PONS
Bolivia:
CASTO ROJAS
DAVID ALVESTEGUI
ARTURO PINTO ESCALIER
Guatemala:
ALFREDO SKINNER KLEE
JOSE GONZALEZ CAMPO
CARLOS SALAZAR
MANUEL ARROYO
Brazil:
AFRANIO DE MELLO FRANCO
LUCILLO A DA CUNHA BUENO
FRANCISCO LUIS DA SILVA CAMPOS
GILBERTO AMADO
CARLOS CHAGAS
SAMUEL RIBEIRO
Ecuador:
AUGUSTO AGUIRRE APARICIO
HUMBERTO ALBORNOZ
ANTONIO PARRA
CARLOS PUIG VILASSAR
ARTURO SCARONE
Nicaragua:
LEONARDO ARGUELLO
MANUEL CORDERO REYES
CARLOS CUADRA PASOS
Colombia:
ALFONSO LOPEZ
RAIMUNDO RIVAS
JOSE CAMACEO CARRENO
Chile:
MIGUEL CRUCHAGA TOCORNAL
OCTAVIO SENORET SILVA
GUSTAVO RIVERA
JOSE RAMON GUTIERREZ
FELIX NIETO DEL RIO
FRANCISCO FIGUEROA SANCHEZ
BENJAMIN COHEN
Peru:
ALFREDO SOLE Y MURO
FELIPE BARREDA LAOS
LUIS FERNAN CISNEROS
Cuba:
ANGEL ALBERTO GIRAUDY
HERMINIO PORTELL VILA
ALFREDO NOGUEIRA
Who, after having exhibited their Full Powers, which were found to be in good and due order, have agreed upon the following:
ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
ARTICLE 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.
ARTICLE 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
ARTICLE 7
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.
ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.
ARTICLE 9
The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.
Nationals and foreigners are under the same protection of the law and the national authorities and the foreigners may not claim rights other or more extensive than those of the nationals.
ARTICLE 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.
ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.
ARTICLE 12
The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements.
ARTICLE 13
The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.
ARTICLE 14
The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications.
ARTICLE 15
The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year's notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties.
ARTICLE 16
The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties.
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp
49 Stat. 3097;
Treaty Series 881
CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States:
Wishing to conclude a Convention on Rights and Duties of States, have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries:
Honduras:
MIGUEL PAZ BARAONA
AUGUSTO C. COELLO
LUIS BOGRAN
United States of America:
CORDELL HULL
ALEXANDER W. WEDDELL
J. REUBEN CLARK
J. BUTLER WRIGHT
SPRUILLE BRADEN
Miss SOPHONISBA P. BRECKINRIDGE
El Salvador:
HECTOR DAVID CASTRO
ARTURO RAMON AVILA
J. CIPRIANO CASTRO
Dominican Republic:
TULIO M. CESTERO
Haiti:
JUSTIN BARAU
FRANCIS SALGADO
ANTOINE PIERRE-PAUL
EDMOND MANGONES
Argentina:
CARLOS SAAVEDRA LAMAS
JUAN F. CAFFERATA
RAMON S. CASTILLO
CARLOS BREBBIA
ISIDORO RUIZ MORENO
LUIS A. PODESTA COSTA
RAUL PREBISCH
DANIEL ANTOKOLETZ
Venezuela:
CESAR ZUMETA
LUIS CHURTON
JOSE RAFAEL MONTTLLA
Uruguay:
ALBERTO MANE
JUAN JOSE AMEZAGA
JOSE G. ANTUNA
JUAN CARLOS BLANCO
Senora SOFIA A. V. DE DEMICHELI
MARTIN R. ECHEGOYEN
LUIS ALBERTO DE HERRERA
PEDRO MANINI RIOS
MATEO MARQUES CASTRO
RODOLFO MEZZERA
OCTAVIO MORAT6
LUIS MORQUIO
TEOFILO PINEYRO CHAIN
DARDO REGULES
JOSE SERRATO
JOSE PEDRO VARELA
Paraguay:
JUSTO PASTOR BENITEZ
GERONIMO RIART
HORACIO A. FERNANDEZ
Senorita MARIA F. GONZALEZ
Mexico:
JOSE MANUEL PUIG CASAURANC
ALFONSO REYES
BASILIO VADILLO
GENARO V. VASQUEZ
ROMEO ORTEGA
MANUEL J. SIERRA
EDUARDO SUAREZ
Panama:
J. D. AROSEMENA
EDUARDO E. HOLGUIN
OSCAR R. MULLER
MAGIN PONS
Bolivia:
CASTO ROJAS
DAVID ALVESTEGUI
ARTURO PINTO ESCALIER
Guatemala:
ALFREDO SKINNER KLEE
JOSE GONZALEZ CAMPO
CARLOS SALAZAR
MANUEL ARROYO
Brazil:
AFRANIO DE MELLO FRANCO
LUCILLO A DA CUNHA BUENO
FRANCISCO LUIS DA SILVA CAMPOS
GILBERTO AMADO
CARLOS CHAGAS
SAMUEL RIBEIRO
Ecuador:
AUGUSTO AGUIRRE APARICIO
HUMBERTO ALBORNOZ
ANTONIO PARRA
CARLOS PUIG VILASSAR
ARTURO SCARONE
Nicaragua:
LEONARDO ARGUELLO
MANUEL CORDERO REYES
CARLOS CUADRA PASOS
Colombia:
ALFONSO LOPEZ
RAIMUNDO RIVAS
JOSE CAMACEO CARRENO
Chile:
MIGUEL CRUCHAGA TOCORNAL
OCTAVIO SENORET SILVA
GUSTAVO RIVERA
JOSE RAMON GUTIERREZ
FELIX NIETO DEL RIO
FRANCISCO FIGUEROA SANCHEZ
BENJAMIN COHEN
Peru:
ALFREDO SOLE Y MURO
FELIPE BARREDA LAOS
LUIS FERNAN CISNEROS
Cuba:
ANGEL ALBERTO GIRAUDY
HERMINIO PORTELL VILA
ALFREDO NOGUEIRA
Who, after having exhibited their Full Powers, which were found to be in good and due order, have agreed upon the following:
ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
ARTICLE 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.
ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.
ARTICLE 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
ARTICLE 7
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.
ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.
ARTICLE 9
The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.
Nationals and foreigners are under the same protection of the law and the national authorities and the foreigners may not claim rights other or more extensive than those of the nationals.
ARTICLE 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.
ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.
ARTICLE 12
The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements.
ARTICLE 13
The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.
ARTICLE 14
The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications.
ARTICLE 15
The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year's notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties.
ARTICLE 16
The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties.
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp
Monday, November 9, 2009
Last Dutch WWII war criminal goes on trial in Germany
Published: 27 October 2009 16:26 | Changed: 27 October 2009 16:26
On Wednesday 88-year-old former SS member Heinrich Boere goes on trial in Germany for the murder of three Dutch citizens during World War II. Boere is probably the last Dutch war criminal to face justice.
By Bart Funnekotter
Nazi hunter Ulrich Maass is a satisfied man. The assassin he has been chasing for years is going to stand trial at last. In Aachen on Wednesday, Maass, the state prosecutor at Dortmund and the head of the German Nazi crimes unit, will deliver his opening arguments in what is probably the last trial against a Dutch war criminal from World War II.
Former SS member Henirich Boere (88) is accused of the murders of three Dutch citizens: Fritz Bicknesse, Teun de Groot and Frans Kusters. The son of a Dutch father and a German mother, Boere was a member of the SS Sonderkommando Feldmeijer, which killed more than fifty Dutch citizens between September 1943 and September 1944 in retaliation for anti-German actions by the resistance.
Life sentence asked
At the beginning of this year it looked like Boere had slipped through Maass' fingers. The court in Aachen ruled that Boere was physically unable to stand trial. But Maass appealed the verdict, and the constitutional court in Karslruhe overruled the Aachen court, clearing the way for Boere's trial. Maass is asking for a life sentence.
Boere was sentenced to death in the Netherlands in 1949 for his part in the murders - in absentia. He had escaped in 1947 from a mine in the south-east province Limburg where he had been sentenced to forced labour, and fled to Germany. Because he had a German mother, Boere qualified for German citizenship, and since Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens, he was out of the reach of the Dutch courts.
But in 2000 a Dutch documentary maker, Rob van Olm, tracked Boere down in Aachen. In the film Boere showed nog sing of remorse. "I don't feel guilty. That's why I have always made sure they couldn't catch me," he said.
Boere served for two years with an SS division on the Eastern front. It had made him indifferent to violence, he said. "We would eat our lunch sitting on top of dead Russians. The resistance to me were the enemy."
Heinous crimes
After the documentary was broadcast, Dutch and German authorities became interested in Boere again. Germany has lately stepped up tracking an trying the last living Nazi war criminals. In August, Josef Scheungraber was given a life sentence for 14 murders in Italy. John Demjanjuk, who is charged with complicity in 28,000 murders in the concentration camp Sobibor, was recently extradited from the US and faces trial in November.
Maass took Boere's Dutch court file from 1949 to the court in his place of residence, Aachen. The court initially adopted the Dutch ruling, but was later overruled by the appeals court in Cologne because Boere did not have legal representation at the time. As a result Maass now has 13 court days to construct his case against Maass from scratch.
He is not expecting any major problems. "After all, Boere has confessed. Now it is up to me to prove the murders were heimtückisch (heinous), otherwise the statute of limitations on them has expired. I also have to prove that there was no Befehlsnotstand: the situation wherein a person's life is in danger if he refuses to follow orders. Many war criminals have hidden behind that excuse in the past, but times have changed. Judges no longer just accept this argument."
Germany allows relatives of victims of war criminals to become Nebenkläger or co-plaintiffs in their trials. They have the right to enter evidence and to question the accused. Nebenklager Teun de Groot from Heillo plans to sit in the front row at the Aachen court house on Wednesday to get a good look at the man who murdered his father on September 3, 1944.
Too little too late
De Groot's father helped people hide from the Germans, but that was not the reason he was killed, says his son. "If the Germans had known this they would have arrested him much sooner. No, it was well-known that my dad was anti-German. The NSB [the Dutch Nazi party] had staged a demonstration outside his bicycle repair shop. The Nazis wanted to send a signal: actions by the resistance would be reciprocated with extreme violence."
After the war, De Groot heard that Boere had been sentenced in absentia, but he didn't hear anymore about him until 2000. When the documentary aired it made him very angry. "He didn't show the least bit of remorse. I hope he gets a life sentence, life with interest, for every day he has evaded justice."
In preparing for the trial De Groot was assisted by German historian Stephan Stracke, who wrote his PhD about the treatment of Nazi war criminals. Stracke says it is "a disgrace" that Boere is only now facing trial. "We began protesting outside his door and that of Herbertus Bicker ten years ago," he says. Bicker, aka the Butcher of Ommen, was another Dutch war criminal living in Germany; he died last year at 93 without ever having stood trial.
Stracke is not impressed by Germany's new-found zeal in bringing war criminals to justice. "Now that there are only a few them left they are suddenly being put on trial. If they had done this ten years ago it could have been hundreds. Those old Nazis have long been protected by friends in high places. Now they are finally gone, but a lot of people have escaped justice because of them. At least Boere will get what he deserves."
Source:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2398518.ece/Last_Dutch_WWII_war_criminal_goes_on_trial_in_Germany
On Wednesday 88-year-old former SS member Heinrich Boere goes on trial in Germany for the murder of three Dutch citizens during World War II. Boere is probably the last Dutch war criminal to face justice.
By Bart Funnekotter
Nazi hunter Ulrich Maass is a satisfied man. The assassin he has been chasing for years is going to stand trial at last. In Aachen on Wednesday, Maass, the state prosecutor at Dortmund and the head of the German Nazi crimes unit, will deliver his opening arguments in what is probably the last trial against a Dutch war criminal from World War II.
Former SS member Henirich Boere (88) is accused of the murders of three Dutch citizens: Fritz Bicknesse, Teun de Groot and Frans Kusters. The son of a Dutch father and a German mother, Boere was a member of the SS Sonderkommando Feldmeijer, which killed more than fifty Dutch citizens between September 1943 and September 1944 in retaliation for anti-German actions by the resistance.
Life sentence asked
At the beginning of this year it looked like Boere had slipped through Maass' fingers. The court in Aachen ruled that Boere was physically unable to stand trial. But Maass appealed the verdict, and the constitutional court in Karslruhe overruled the Aachen court, clearing the way for Boere's trial. Maass is asking for a life sentence.
Boere was sentenced to death in the Netherlands in 1949 for his part in the murders - in absentia. He had escaped in 1947 from a mine in the south-east province Limburg where he had been sentenced to forced labour, and fled to Germany. Because he had a German mother, Boere qualified for German citizenship, and since Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens, he was out of the reach of the Dutch courts.
But in 2000 a Dutch documentary maker, Rob van Olm, tracked Boere down in Aachen. In the film Boere showed nog sing of remorse. "I don't feel guilty. That's why I have always made sure they couldn't catch me," he said.
Boere served for two years with an SS division on the Eastern front. It had made him indifferent to violence, he said. "We would eat our lunch sitting on top of dead Russians. The resistance to me were the enemy."
Heinous crimes
After the documentary was broadcast, Dutch and German authorities became interested in Boere again. Germany has lately stepped up tracking an trying the last living Nazi war criminals. In August, Josef Scheungraber was given a life sentence for 14 murders in Italy. John Demjanjuk, who is charged with complicity in 28,000 murders in the concentration camp Sobibor, was recently extradited from the US and faces trial in November.
Maass took Boere's Dutch court file from 1949 to the court in his place of residence, Aachen. The court initially adopted the Dutch ruling, but was later overruled by the appeals court in Cologne because Boere did not have legal representation at the time. As a result Maass now has 13 court days to construct his case against Maass from scratch.
He is not expecting any major problems. "After all, Boere has confessed. Now it is up to me to prove the murders were heimtückisch (heinous), otherwise the statute of limitations on them has expired. I also have to prove that there was no Befehlsnotstand: the situation wherein a person's life is in danger if he refuses to follow orders. Many war criminals have hidden behind that excuse in the past, but times have changed. Judges no longer just accept this argument."
Germany allows relatives of victims of war criminals to become Nebenkläger or co-plaintiffs in their trials. They have the right to enter evidence and to question the accused. Nebenklager Teun de Groot from Heillo plans to sit in the front row at the Aachen court house on Wednesday to get a good look at the man who murdered his father on September 3, 1944.
Too little too late
De Groot's father helped people hide from the Germans, but that was not the reason he was killed, says his son. "If the Germans had known this they would have arrested him much sooner. No, it was well-known that my dad was anti-German. The NSB [the Dutch Nazi party] had staged a demonstration outside his bicycle repair shop. The Nazis wanted to send a signal: actions by the resistance would be reciprocated with extreme violence."
After the war, De Groot heard that Boere had been sentenced in absentia, but he didn't hear anymore about him until 2000. When the documentary aired it made him very angry. "He didn't show the least bit of remorse. I hope he gets a life sentence, life with interest, for every day he has evaded justice."
In preparing for the trial De Groot was assisted by German historian Stephan Stracke, who wrote his PhD about the treatment of Nazi war criminals. Stracke says it is "a disgrace" that Boere is only now facing trial. "We began protesting outside his door and that of Herbertus Bicker ten years ago," he says. Bicker, aka the Butcher of Ommen, was another Dutch war criminal living in Germany; he died last year at 93 without ever having stood trial.
Stracke is not impressed by Germany's new-found zeal in bringing war criminals to justice. "Now that there are only a few them left they are suddenly being put on trial. If they had done this ten years ago it could have been hundreds. Those old Nazis have long been protected by friends in high places. Now they are finally gone, but a lot of people have escaped justice because of them. At least Boere will get what he deserves."
Source:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2398518.ece/Last_Dutch_WWII_war_criminal_goes_on_trial_in_Germany
SS trial halted over prosecutor's statements
News, Opinion and Background - Thursday 29 October 2009
Published: 28 October 2009 16:51 | Changed: 28 October 2009 17:16
By Bart Funnekotter in Aachen
The trial of the Dutch SS officer Heinrich Broere (88) in the western German city of Aachen was adjourned on Wednesday.
Lawyers for Broere, who is standing trial for killing three Dutch civilians during World War II, challenged the prosecutor on statements he made in the Dutch and German press.
The defence argued that state prosecutor Ulrich Maass is not out to "find the truth" but to get Broere convicted. "According to the law, the prosecutor has to be open to exculpatory evidence," lawyer Gordon Christiansen said at the beginning of what is one of the last World War II trials. Christiansen urged Maass' superiors to remove him from the case. He deemed the prosecution's proposal to have Maass' assistant Andreas Brendel read the opening statements unacceptable.
This left the presiding judge no option but to adjourn the trial, until next Monday, to give the prosecution time to come up with an answer to the accusation. "I assume I can resume the case on Monday," Maass said after the court's decision. "It is a simple legal fact that I cannot prosecute unless I am convinced it will lead to a conviction."
The adjournment ing was a great disappointment for Teun de Groot junior, who travelled to Aachen from the Netherlands to give a statement to the court against the man who killed his father, Teun de Groot senior. That co-plaintiff's statement will now be read by his attorney as soon as the case resumes.
De Groot did get a chance to see the man who murdered his father in September 1944 for the first time. "A pathetic little man," De Groot called Broere, who attended the trial in a wheelchair and was accompanied by two physicians.
Broere, a son of a Dutch father and a German mother, was part of a secret commando unit that killed over 50 Dutch people for resistance attacks on collaborators in 1943 and 1944. He is on trial 65 years later for his part in the killings, known as the Silbertanne-Aktion.
The prosecution does not have to prove he killed Teun de Groot, Fritz Bicknesse and Frans Kusters - Broere has admitted to doing so on several occasions - but that the killings were heimtückisch (heinous). If not, the statute of limitations on them has expired.
In the 1980s German investigators concluded the murders were a legitimate retaliation, under martial law, for attacks by the Dutch resistance. Maass, or his replacement, will try to prove otherwise.
The fact the executions took place in secret runs contrary to this theory. Teun de Groot jr.'s lawyer Detlev Hartmann meanwhile intends to prove the war started by Germany was criminal and therefore excluded from martial law. "That makes the whole defence obsolete that the Silbertanne murders were legal retaliations."
Source:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2399530.ece/SS_trial_halted_over_prosecutors_statements
Published: 28 October 2009 16:51 | Changed: 28 October 2009 17:16
By Bart Funnekotter in Aachen
The trial of the Dutch SS officer Heinrich Broere (88) in the western German city of Aachen was adjourned on Wednesday.
Lawyers for Broere, who is standing trial for killing three Dutch civilians during World War II, challenged the prosecutor on statements he made in the Dutch and German press.
The defence argued that state prosecutor Ulrich Maass is not out to "find the truth" but to get Broere convicted. "According to the law, the prosecutor has to be open to exculpatory evidence," lawyer Gordon Christiansen said at the beginning of what is one of the last World War II trials. Christiansen urged Maass' superiors to remove him from the case. He deemed the prosecution's proposal to have Maass' assistant Andreas Brendel read the opening statements unacceptable.
This left the presiding judge no option but to adjourn the trial, until next Monday, to give the prosecution time to come up with an answer to the accusation. "I assume I can resume the case on Monday," Maass said after the court's decision. "It is a simple legal fact that I cannot prosecute unless I am convinced it will lead to a conviction."
The adjournment ing was a great disappointment for Teun de Groot junior, who travelled to Aachen from the Netherlands to give a statement to the court against the man who killed his father, Teun de Groot senior. That co-plaintiff's statement will now be read by his attorney as soon as the case resumes.
De Groot did get a chance to see the man who murdered his father in September 1944 for the first time. "A pathetic little man," De Groot called Broere, who attended the trial in a wheelchair and was accompanied by two physicians.
Broere, a son of a Dutch father and a German mother, was part of a secret commando unit that killed over 50 Dutch people for resistance attacks on collaborators in 1943 and 1944. He is on trial 65 years later for his part in the killings, known as the Silbertanne-Aktion.
The prosecution does not have to prove he killed Teun de Groot, Fritz Bicknesse and Frans Kusters - Broere has admitted to doing so on several occasions - but that the killings were heimtückisch (heinous). If not, the statute of limitations on them has expired.
In the 1980s German investigators concluded the murders were a legitimate retaliation, under martial law, for attacks by the Dutch resistance. Maass, or his replacement, will try to prove otherwise.
The fact the executions took place in secret runs contrary to this theory. Teun de Groot jr.'s lawyer Detlev Hartmann meanwhile intends to prove the war started by Germany was criminal and therefore excluded from martial law. "That makes the whole defence obsolete that the Silbertanne murders were legal retaliations."
Source:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2399530.ece/SS_trial_halted_over_prosecutors_statements
Boere und das Killerkommando
NS-Kriegsverbrechen
27.10.2009, 15:41
Nach langem juristischen Tauziehen steht Heinrich Boere in Aachen vor Gericht - der Greis soll in den Niederlanden für die SS gemordet haben.
Der mutmaßliche SS-Mörder Heinrich Boere im Jahr 2003 (Foto: AP)
Heinrich Boere zählt zu den zehn meistgesuchten Nazi-Kriegsverbrechern des Simon-Wiesenthal-Zentrums in Jerusalem und lebte trotzdem über Jahrzehnte ein normales Leben. Alle Versuche der Justiz, den mutmaßlichen SS-Mörder zu bestrafen, scheiterten.
Doch jetzt, im hohen Alter von 88 Jahren, holt Heinrich Boere in einem Altenheim in Eschweiler bei Aachen die Vergangenheit ein. Von diesem Mittwoch an steht er in einem der letzten Kriegsverbrecherprozesse vor dem Aachener Landgericht. Er ist wegen dreifachen Mordes angeklagt.
Immer ein neues Schlupfloch
Als Mitglied eines Killerkommandos von Hitlers SS soll der damals 23-Jährige drei Niederländer erschossen haben. Mehrfach war ihm die Justiz auf den Fersen. Immer hatte er ein Schlupfloch gefunden, um der drohenden Haftstrafe zu entgehen. Diese Strategie ging zuletzt nicht auf, auch wenn es zunächst anders aussah.
Das Landgericht Aachen hatte Anfang des Jahres die Eröffnung des Prozesses gegen Boere wegen dessen angeschlagener Gesundheit zunächst abgelehnt. Das Oberlandesgericht Köln kam zu einem anderen Schluss. Trotz der schweren Herzerkrankung könne der Prozess stattfinden. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht bestätigte diese Einschätzung. Wegen des hohen Alters war es wohl die letzte Chance für einen Versuch von Gerechtigkeit.
Oberstaatsanwalt Ulrich Maaß hatte die Mordfälle neu aufgerollt, nachdem diese schon seit 1949 Gerichte und Regierungen beschäftigt hatten. Da kaum noch Zeugen leben, griff der Leiter der nordrhein-westfälischen Schwerpunkt-Staatsanwaltschaft für NS-Verbrechen auf alte Vernehmungsprotokolle zurück.
Demnach hatte das SS-Sonderkommando "Feldmeijer" den jungen Boere rekrutiert. Die Einheit wurde nach Johannes Hendrik Feldmeijer benannt, einem niederländischen Faschisten, der ebenfalls Mitglied in der SS war.
Mord an Apotheker, Mord an Fahrradhädler
Heinrich Boeres Mutter war Deutsche, der Vater Niederländer. Nach Anschlägen auf deutsche Besatzungseinrichtungen sollte das Sonderkommando niederländische Untergrundkämpfer töten.
Namensgeber von Boeres Mordkommando: der niederländische Nazi Johannes Hendrik Feldmeijer (Foto: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101III-Stenzel-026-22)
Das erste Opfer war laut Anklage am 14. Juli 1944 der Apotheker Fritz Bicknese aus Breda, den der Angeklagte mit einem Komplizen erschoss. Monate später dann die Order, den Fahrradhändler Teunis de Groot und Frans-Willem Kusters in Voorschoten und Wassenaar zu töten.
Etwa ein Jahr danach, inzwischen war Hitler-Deutschland besiegt, wurde der heute 88-Jährige festgenommen. Doch er konnte fliehen und tauchte zunächst in den Niederlanden unter. Ein Sondergerichtshof in Amsterdam verurteilte ihn 1949 in Abwesenheit zum Tode. Die Strafe wurde später in lebenslange Haft umgewandelt.
Reges Interesse in den Niederlanden
Ende 1954 kehrte der verurteilte Dreifachmörder in seine Geburtsstadt Eschweiler zurück und arbeitete dort als Bergmann. Einen Antrag der Niederländer auf Auslieferung lehnte Deutschland 1980 ab, weil die Nationalität nicht eindeutig geklärt war und Deutsche damals nicht ausgeliefert wurden.
Gegen die spätere Entscheidung des Landgerichts Aachen, dass der Mann die Strafe in Deutschland verbüßen solle, legte der Angeklagte erfolgreich Beschwerde ein. Gut 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende wird der Fall in den Niederlanden noch immer aufmerksam beobachtet.
Quelle:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/127/492483/text/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
