decision to detain and try Eichmann made them an accessory. This point
is Argentina’s strongest argument because it is known that the
jurisdiction of the court reaches only as far as the borders of the
state of which it is in. If the court had no jurisdiction in the
nation of the original seizure, then by what right does that court
have to detain and try the accused? The only problem with Argentina’s
final argument on the Eichmann abduction is that proof of forcible
seizure or arrest must be presented. Since the abductors were acting
of their own free will it is doubtful that they arrested Eichmann in
the name of Israel. It is, however, quite possible that the abductors
used some force in the removal of Eichmann, but again, use of force
must be proved to give validity to Argentina’s final argument.
Argentina filed a complaint with the United Nations Security Council
under Article 33 claiming that Israel violated international law,
which created an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust jeopardizing
the preservation of international peace. (Silving 312) After the
presentation of arguments and debates before the Security Council the
follow declarations were made:
violation of the sovereignty of a Member State is incompatible
with the Charter of the United Nations; repetition of acts such as
that giving rise to this situation would involve a breach of the
principles upon which international order is founded creating an
atmosphere of insecurity and distrust incompatible with the
preservation of peace. The “adjudicative” part of the resolution. 1.
Declares that acts such as that under considerations, which affect the
sovereignty of a Member State and therefore cause international
friction, may, if repeated, endanger international peace and security;
2. Requests the Government of Israel to make appropriate reparation in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and rules of
international law.12 The important part of the resolutions that the
United Nations reached is the phrase “if repeated.” It is almost as if
the United Nations said, “this time we will let the infringement go,
but next we will take action.”
Considering the unique character of the crimes attributed to
Eichmann, and since such crimes are, for the most part, universally
condemned, Israel’s breach of international law seems to have been
tolerated. It is quite possible that had the person who was removed
been someone other than Eichmann the result of the United Nations
Security Council would have been much different.
The two cases of extradition expose the complexities of
international law. In the case of Demjanjuk, Israel went about the
extradition process in the correct manner, which resulted in the
issues of identification and probable cause, requirement of
criminality, extraterritoriality, and extratemporality. When Israel
went about obtaining Adolf Eichmann the issues dealt with were ones
resulting from the method of Eichmann’s apprehension. Eichmann’s
removal from Argentina brought to light the issue of violation of a
country’s sovereignty. In both cases because the accused were being
charged with Nazi war crimes, specifically genocide, there cases seem
to get a little leeway and are not dealt with as extremely as other
cases might be. Nevertheless, their cases demonstrate how one goes
about bringing to justice those charged with violating the laws of
war.
—
FOOTNOTES
1 Roberts, Adam, and Richard Guelff, ed. Documents of the Laws of
War. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.) 155.
2 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 3.
3 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 15.
4 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 15.
5 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 18.
6 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 18.
7 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 20.
8 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 23.
9 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from
the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in
Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of
International Law. 23 (1986): 23.
10 Silving, Helen. “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality”
The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):311.
11 Silving, Helen. “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality”
The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):318.
12 Silving, Helen. “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality”
The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):313.