. The link to "extermination" leads to the article on "genocide". The crime against humanity of extermination is not the same as genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmatique06 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improvement Idea[edit]

It may be useful to separate out the issue-specific tribunals from the more general purpose courts --i.e. split up the current "Courts" section into two. Just a thought. --Ben Houston 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this proposal. —Nightstallion (?) 13:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“Sources of law” section[edit]

At the moment, the “Sources of law” section contains the following topics:

Most of these are not actually sources of law. I suggest we split it into two sections:

Sources of law:

Crimes:

We could probably add a few international conventions (Geneva, Hague, Genocide, Torture) to the sources section as well. I'm not sure what to do with Command responsibility and Universal jurisdiction.

What do you think? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

War responsibility trials in Finland[edit]

Petri, the Finnish trials are the only one in the list which is national, not international. Also, you are wrong about application of Nürnberg Principles, as they were formulated later than the Finnish law used in the trials, so you had to meant London charter, but. And if you read the text of the law, there is no mention about war of aggression there, as it states: "Joka ratkaisevalla tavalla on vaikuttanut Suomen joutumiseen sotaan vuonna 1941 Sosialististen Neuvostotasavaltain Liittoa taikka Ison-Britannian ja Pohjois-Irlannin Yhtynyttä Kuningaskuntaa vastaan tai estänyt sodan aikana rauhan aikaansaamista,..." (Those who have in definitive way influenced Finland getting into the war against Soviet Union and United Kingdom or who have prevented the peace during the war,...), which could only veeeryyy broadly to be considered as a crime against peace. --Whiskey 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, in Petri's version there is a mistake I sometimes wrote also: the Finnish trials were not a court itself, they were in the Supreme Court of Finland, not any seperate international or national war criminal court, just a trial in the Supreme. So it is false to call it a national court either. I have also changed the lead in the main article according to this text, hope you like it better. --Pudeo⺮ 22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All these arguiments are irrelevant: this template is about the application if international criminal law, not about international courts. Restoring War-responsibility trials in Finland. -- Petri Krohn 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you mean to add all national courts which handle cases of piracy and slave trade here also? I think it would be best if this template concentrates to international courts which handle cases concerning international criminal law. --Whiskey 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Petri, you've reverted this four times already, even though it's clear no-one agrees with you. Please don't do it again without reaching a consensus first.
You say "this template is about the application if international criminal law, not about international courts" — are you saying we should include every court that has ever applied international criminal law? Do you want to list every court involved in the trials of Eichmann, Pinochet, Saddam, and hundreds of other criminals? If so, it's going to be a very big template.
The current consensus appears to be that this template should include only courts of an international nature. If you want a broader list of courts (or cases) that have applied international criminal law, I suggest you create a new list or category. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article does not seem to mention "international criminal law" by name, so how do we know it was applied in these trials? Badagnani 06:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trial only applied to Finnish retroactive law (that maybe active today too). Sure some principles were taken taken from Treaty of London, 1945, but it wasn't de jure or de facto any international law. Can't understand why it should be mentioned as an international court, aside from Taistoist-ideals of Mr. Krohn, which quite honestly are getting quite aggrative after some time. He has been banned twice from trolling on this kind of things, so it might be a better idea to let him be in the lowest class alone. --Pudeo⺮ 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories