PROSECUTING AND DEFENDING DIPLOMATS AS WAR CRIMINALS: RIBBENTROP AT THE NUREMBERG TRIALS

This article considers the question of holding foreign ministers responsible for war crimes. A recent decision by the International Court of Justice, the Arrest Warrant case, Congo v Belgium, appears to have diluted the developing international customary rule that suspends immunity when a grave international crime has been committed. This article suggests that the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal decision in the Ribbentrop Case constitutes a precedent for how international criminal law should interpret the nature and scope of the immunity for foreign ministers. As a successful prosecution of Hitler's former foreign minister, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to this aspect of the Ribbentrop Case given that it was a path-breaking decision. For that reason, the present article is a case study of this example where prosecutors at an international criminal tribunal were able to successfully prosecute a foreign minister in a manner that may, therefore, still prove instructive given the existing legal position following the Arrest Warrant Case. The article considers in detail how Ribbentrop's defence lawyers constructed a series of arguments that the prosecution were, however, largely able to demolish through resort to a variety of strategies.