. NMT05-T1126
Volume VI · Page 1126
| labor is also mentioned; while in connection with the prisoners of
war the forbidden employment is not mentioned outside the examples of murder
and mistreatment. One could argue against it that in giving examples the law says expressly that the enumeration is not an exhaustive one. However, this argument is not sound; for the higher notion in Article II, paragraph 1 (b) expressly says: "Atrocities or offences against persons or property" and accordingly Article 31 of the Geneva Convention which forbids employment for the manufacture of arms and ammunition cannot be so understood. From that it follows that the violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, namely the forbidden employment in regard to arms and ammunition, can neither be considered a "war crime" in the sense of the Control Council Law nor according to the letter of it. Finally in all these questions the fact will have to be considered, as I already pointed out in my opening statement, that international law is in a state of evolution and that it is not so easily possible to consider the painstakingly codified regulations as entirely free of any doubts. This can be shown by looking back to the time of 1907, that is the time of The Hague Convention on Land Warfare until the Geneva Convention of 1929, as well as a consideration of the forms of the Second World War. The comprehension of the rules governing prisoners of war has undergone changes from the time of The Hague Convention on Land Warfare until the Geneva Convention, on the basis of developments in international law, and especially on the basis of the forms of the First World War. This follows easily from a comparison of The Hague Convention on Land Warfare with the Geneva Convention. This becomes especially clear just in regard to the rules on employment. According to Article 6 of The Hague Convention, the employment of prisoners of war must "have no relation with war operation," while in 1929 in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention the word "direct" was added and it was now ruled that the work must have "no direct relation with war operations." According to Article 6 of The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907 also the indirect relation to war acts was forbidden, and the Geneva Convention has, on the basis of the development in international law, altered this rule deliberately, that is, they limited it, as follows in particular from the examples mentioned in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. And in the same way international law has changed since 1929. I merely mention the war in the air. In Article 25 of the Hague Convention it says and, I quote: |
|
"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns |
