The label "victor's justice" (in German, Siegerjustiz) is a situation in which an entity partakes in carrying out "justice" on its own basis of applying different rules to judge what is right or wrong for their own forces and for those of the (former) enemy. Advocates generally charge that the difference in rules amounts to hypocrisy and leads to injustice. Targets of the label may consider it derogatory.
Closely related is "Vae Victis behaviour", where victor unilaterally changes the agreed treaties or their interpretations and is seen as a form of victor's justice.
Contents |
Legal constraints on the conduct of war in ancient Rome appear in Cicero: "As for war, humane laws touching it are drawn up in the fetial code of the Roman People." Specifically, "no war is just, unless it is entered upon after an official demand for satisfaction has been submitted or warning has been given and a formal declaration made."[1] Breaches of this duty by Roman citizens were adjudicated at trial.
But to enemies of war, Roman law attributed neither duties nor rights; hence judgment – and punishment – of defeated foes was at Roman discretion. Still, the exercise of that discretion must serve justice, Cicero argued: "...when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare" (warmaking being excused only when "we may live in peace unharmed" in no other way).[2]
The Western tradition of thinking on just war continues into Christendom and then Modernity, and from the late 19th century becomes codified in international conventions, most notably those of Geneva and the Hague, then said to express laws of war.
A stark and detailed example of victor's justice is presented by James Madison Page in his 1908 book The True Story of Andersonville Prison, subtitled "A Defense of Major Henry Wirz."[3] After describing his months as a prisoner of war of the Confederacy, the author recounts the imprisonment and trial of Major Henry Wirz, CSA, commandant of the prison camp operated at Andersonville, Ga. during the American Civil War. Many of the phenomena and issues later observed in the war-crimes trials following the Second World War may be seen in this account of Wirz's trial, conviction, sentencing, and execution.
The Nuremberg Criminal Court for war crimes (and subsidiary courts like the Dachau International Military Tribunal) prosecuted only Axis nationals or collaborators. However it is usual that the armed forces of a civilised country [4] issue their forces with detailed guidance on what is and is not permitted under their military code. These are drafted to include any international treaty obligations and the customary laws of war. For example at the trial of Otto Skorzeny his defence was in part based on the Field Manual published by the War Department of the United States Army, on 1 October 1940, and the American Soldiers' Handbook.[5] If a member of the armed forces breaks their own military code they can expect to face a court martial. When members of the Allied armed forces broke their military codes they could be tried, as for example the Dachau massacre or the Biscari Massacre trials. The unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was unusual and led directly to the formation of the international tribunals. Usually international wars end conditionally and the treatment of suspected war criminals makes up part of the peace treaty. In most cases those who are not prisoners of war are tried under their own judicial system if they are suspected of committing war crimes – as happened the end of the concurrent Continuation War where Allied Control Commission provided a list of occurrences of war crimes and crimes against peace, and the investigation and judgement of these cases were left to Finnish courts according to Finnish law. However, in that case an ex post facto law had to be stated, as the Finnish Criminal Act didn't contain a concept of being responsible of politics resulting in a war. In restricting the international tribunal to trying suspected Axis war crimes, the Allies were acting within normal international law.
Since World War II, the accusation of victor's justice has arisen in every subsequent conflict where war crimes prosecutions have been made. Examples of include the wars in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and Afghanistan.
The International Criminal Court was set up in 2003 as a treaty arrangement between member states in an attempt to provide a neutral international court that avoids the accusation of "victor's justice", and that would prosecute all alleged war crimes, on either side of any conflict. The United States has currently refused to join the ICC, and critics of this decision sometimes claim that this comes out of a desire for victor's justice. See the article on the court for more detail on US and other objections to it.
Two further recent conflicts in which the U.S. have been involved have led to allegations of victor's justice:
|
|||||