The Nuremberg IV principle and its reference to individual responsibility were also controversial in Canada in Hinzman v. Canada. Jeremy Hinzman was a U.S. Army deserter who claimed refugee status in Canada as a conscientious objector, one of many resistance fighters during the Iraq War. Hinzman`s lawyer, Jeffry House, had previously raised the question of the legality of the Iraq war as relevant to his case. The Federal Court`s judgment was published on 31 March 2006 and rejected the application for refugee status. [6] [7] In her decision, Justice Anne L. Mactavish addressed the issue of personal responsibility: The ICC`s predecessors are primarily the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which were created by the victorious Allies after World War II. These tribunals have been accused of being unjust and merely institutions of “victors` justice”, but they have nevertheless laid the foundations of modern international criminal law. These were the first courts before which perpetrators of violations of international law were held accountable for their crimes. They also recognized individual responsibility and rejected historically used defensive measures based on state sovereignty. These principles of international law, recognized in the Nuremberg Charter and judgments, were subsequently reaffirmed in a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. The idea of a “war crime” or war crime is not new to modern legal vocabulary.

Unorthodox practices during a war have been characterized as war crimes in many conflict scenarios. However, these war crimes were not in themselves punishable by any international tribunal (mainly because of the virtual absence of such a legal apparatus in the United Nations) and constituted a concept without consequences, a general concept that hovered in the aftermath of wars and did not concern the individual as such, but was based on the concept of State responsibility. It is only since the elaboration of a doctrine of human rights, fundamental and documented universal principles, that such crimes have materialized into legal occupation due to the development of the term “crimes against humanity” and its derivative violations. The concept of “crimes against humanity” is the product of very recent historical, political and social events that have placed war crimes in a different light in international law and human rights framework, which have permeated the laws of war as an international phenomenon codified in many respects. As a provision, it was the first step that initiated a completely new approach on the part of part of the international community to certain attacks against civilians in times of war and also in times of peace. Some practices have theoretically become “illegal” in the broadest sense within the international community, criminalizing governments, collectives and individuals, whether military or civilian, and involving the commission of both individual and collective crimes. After the emergence of this idea, conventions emerged, as well as resolutions and other relevant laws emanating from international bodies and bodies (mainly the United Nations). The ultimate reason for the emergence of these provisions was, theoretically and taking into account political considerations, the protection of man as an individual, regardless of geographical, political or social factors and circumstances, and thus became, so to speak, a “human right” in its own right. Crimes against humanity as a new principle arose after World War II, as a result of the Nazi Committee on Atrocities Before and During Armed Conflict.

The founding of the United Nations in 1945 was, in a way, the embodiment of the general fear of these atrocities that would never be committed, and that institution played an important role in developing legal doctrines that included concepts such as crimes against humanity that first emerged in legal and conceptual form prior to the Nuremberg trials in 1945. during the London Agreement of 1945 and its Charter, which laid the groundwork for the creation of a military tribunal.