Правосудие от имени шести миллионов обвинителей: дело «The Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann» в контексте международного права

ВВЕДЕНИЕ. Уголовное преследование Адольфа Эйхмана, одного из наиболее разыскиваемых военных преступников, фигурировавшего в числе главных «архитекторов» «окончательного решения еврейского вопроса», вызвало целый ряд проблем политического, правового характера и этического характера. При этом судебное разбирательство по делу А. Эйхмана было беспрецедентным в долгой истории международного уголовного права в силу целого ряда обстоятельств. Хотя многие лидеры нацистского режима предстали перед Международным военным трибуналом в Нюрнберге, массовые убийства и другие вопиющие преступления против Еврейского народа не стали основным предметом уголовного разбирательства, а некоторым организаторам систематического истребления евреев населения удалось скрыться от ответственности. В этом отношении преследование и наказание одного из главных виновников геноцида еврейского населения явилось одной из самых важных задач государства Израиль.
МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ. Теоретическую основу исследования составили работы ведущих юристовмеждународников, специализирующихся в области международного уголовного права, а также международной выдачи преступников; аналитическую базу – решения Нюрнбергского международного военного трибунала, национальных судов государства Израиль, включая знаковое решение The Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Adolf Eichmann, а также решения национальных судов США, приведенных в статье в целях компаративного анализа. Основными методами исследования являются: исторический метод, методы формальной логики, включая анализ, синтез и аналогию, а также системный, сравнительно-правовой методы.
РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. На основе исследования международно-правовых актов, международной судебной практики, а также национального законодательства и практики судебных органов государства Израиль, автором формируются выводы, связанные с установление видов уголовной юрисдикции, похищением обвиняемых с территории иностранных государств, его последствия в виде нарушения суверенитета государства. Вместе с тем, в статье указывается, что обстоятельства ареста и способ доставки не рассматриваются в качестве релевантных обстоятельств, которые могли бы препятствовать осуществлению уголовной юрисдикции. В контексте осуществления правосудия на А. Эйхманом автор анализирует отдельные положения Конвенции о статусе беженцев от 14 декабря 1951 г.
ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ. В ходе проведенного исследования автор проанализировал значительный объем материалов, обобщил доктринальные позиции, выдвинутые рядом выдающихся ученыхмеждународников, а также сформировал вывод о том, что суд над Адольфом Эйхманом ознаменовал собой не только осуществление правосудия над геноцидарием, но и предоставил еще одну возможность широкой международной огласки вопиющих преступлений нацистского режима и необходимость объединения коллективных усилий государств для избавления будущих поколений от подобных злодеяний. 

1. Глотова С. В. 2016. Преступления против человечности: генезис и современное понимание концепции. – Журнал зарубежного и сравнительного законодательства. № 3. C. 101-109.

2. Звягинцев А. Г. 2006. Нюрнбергский набат: репортаж из прошлого, обращение к будущему. М.: ОЛМА Медиа Груп. 1120 с.

3. Сафаров Н.А. 2005. Экстрадиция в международном уголовном праве: проблемы теории и практики. М.: Волтерс Клувер. 415 c.

4. Сафаров Н.А. 2006. Насильственное похищение обвиняемых: теория и практика западной юриспруденции. – Российский ежегодник уголовного права. № 1. С. 392-410.

5. Сафаров Н.А. 2011. Преследование международных преступлений: универсальная юрисдикция против дипломатического иммунитета. – Государство и право. № 9. C. 81-92.

6. Черниченко С.В. 2018. Максима «право не возникает из правонарушения» и сменяемость императивных норм международного права. – Правоведение. № 1. C. 6-19.

7. Ambos K. 2021. Treatise of International Criminal Law. Vol.I: Foundations and General Part. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 656 p. DOI: 10.1093/law/9780199657926.001.0001

8. Annacker C. 1994. The Legal Regime of Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law. – Austrian Journal of Public and International Law. Vol. 46. No. 2. Р. 131-166.

9. Arendt H. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: The Viking Press. 275 p.

10. Argentine Jews or Jewish Argentines? Essays of Ethnicity, Identity, and Diaspora. Ed. by R. Rein. 2010. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 312 p.

11. Asia: Middle East Record. Vol. 1. Ed. by Y. Oron. 1962. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 582 p.

12. Bach G. 2011. Genocide (Holocaust) Trials in Israel. – The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law Since 1945: 60th Anniversary International Conference. Ed. by H.R. Reginbogin, C. Safferling, W. de Gruyter. München: K.G. Sauer Verlag GmbX. P. 216-223.

13. Baker b., Röben V. 1993. To Abduct or to Extradite: Does a Treaty Beg the Question?. – Heidelberg International Law Journal. Vol. 53. P. 657-688.

14. Bassiouni C. 1996. International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes. – Law and Contemporary Problems. Vol. 59. No. 4. P. 63-74.

15. Bassiouni C. 1999. Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law. 2nd ed. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. 652 p.

16. Bassiouni C. 2011. Crimes against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 884 p.

17. Bassiouni C. 2014. International Extradition: United States Law and Practice. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1233 p.

18. Bazyler M.J., Tuerkheimer F.M. 2014. Forgotten Trial of the Holocaust. New York: New York University Press. 390 p.

19. Bazyler M. J. 2016. Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law: A Quest for Justice in a Post-Holocaust World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 281 p. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395693.001.0001

20. Bazyler M.J., Scheppach J.Y. 2012. The Strange and Curious History of the Law Used to Prosecute Adolf Eichmann. – Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review. Vol. 34. P. 417-461.

21. Beigbeder Y. 2005. International Justice against Impunity: Progress and New Challenges. Boston; Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. 247 p.

22. Bradley M. 2021. Jus Cogens’ Preffered Sister: Obligations Erga Omnes and the International Court of Justice – Fifty Years after the Barcelona Traction. – Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens): Disquisitions and Disputations. Ed. by D. Tladi. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. P. 193-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004464124_009

23. Ben-Naftali O., Tuval Y. 2006. Punishing International Crimes Committed by the Persecuted: The Kapo Trials in Israel (1950-1960). – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 128-178.

24. Bryant M. 2012. Eichmann in Jerusalem and in West Germany: Eichmann Trial Witnesses and the West German Prosecution of Operation Reinhard Crimes, 1958–1966. – 2012. Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review. Vol. 34. P. 339-385.

25. Bilsky L. 2014. The Eichmann trial: Towards a jurisprudence of eyewitness testimony of atrocities. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 12. Issue 1. P. 27-57.

26. Bilsky L., Klagsburn R. 2018. Cultural Genocide: Between Law and History. – The Oxford Handbook of Legal History. Ed. by M. D. Dubber and Chr.Tomlins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 1081-1094. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198794356.013.58

27. Bond J. 2013. Principled Exclusion: A Revised Approach to Article1(F)(a) of the Refugee Convention. – Michigan Journal of International Law. Vol. 35. Issue No. 1. P. 15-78.

28. Cassese A. 2009. Eichmann: Is Evil So Banal? - Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 7. Issue No. 3. P. 645-652.

29. Cassese’s International Criminal Law. 3rd ed. Ed. by A. Cassese [et. al.].2013. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 472 p.

30. Cowles W. B. Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes. – California Law Review. 1945. Vol. XXXIII. N 2. P. 177-218.

31. Cryer R. 2005. Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and International Criminal Law Regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 347 p.

32. Brown A. 2015. Judging “Privileged” Jews: Holocaust Ethics, Representation and the “Grey Zone”. New York: Berghahn. 222 p.

33. Carlisle J. 1993. Extradition of Governments Agents as Municipal Law Remedy for state-Sponsored Kidnapping. – California Law Review. Vol. 81. No.6. P. 1541-1586.

34. Cimiotta E. 2016. The Relevance of Erga Omnes Obligations in Prosecuting of International Crimes. – Heidelberg Journal of International Law. Vol. 76. P. 687-713.

35. Colangelo A. 2007. Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Terrorism and the Intersection of National and International Law. – Harvard International Law Journal. Vol. 48. No. 1. P. 121-201.

36. Douglas L. 2001. The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the Trials of the Holocaust. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 318 p.

37. Criddle E. 2013. Standing for Human Rights Abroad. – Cornell Law Review. Vol. 100. P. 269-333.

38. Cwik Сhr. 2009. The other Immigration to Argentina: The Case of Adolf Eichmann. – Clío América. Vol. 3. Issue 5. P. 85-103.

39. Ferdinandusse W.N. 2006. Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press. 338 p.

40. Czaplinski W. 1999. Concepts of Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law in the Light of Recent Developments. – Polish Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 23. P. 87-97.

41. Detter I. 2016. The Law of War. 3rd ed. London; New York: Routledge. 568 p.

42. De Vet E. 2013. Invoking Obligations Erga Omnes in the Twenty-First Century: Progressive Developments since Barcelona Traction. – South African Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 38. P. 1-19.

43. Dinstein Y. 1998. The Universality Principle and War Crimes. – International Law Studies. Vol. 71. P. 17-37.

44. Drumbl M. 2016. Victims who Victimise. – London Review of International Law. Vol. 4. Issue 2. P. 217-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrw015

45. Feldestein A. 2006. Ben-Gurion, Zionism and American Jewry: 1948-1963. London: Routledge. 240 p.

46. Forlati S. 2001. Azioni dinanzi alla Corte internazionale di guistizia rispetto a violazioni di obblighi erga omnes. – Rivista di diritto internazionale. No. 1. P. 69-109.

47. Fournet C. 2007. The Crime of Destruction and the Law of Genocide: Their Impact on Collective Memory. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. 175 p.

48. Fox F. 1999. The Pinochet Case No. 3. – The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 48. Issue 3. P. 687-702.

49. Friedman J. 1994. Arendt in Jerusalem, Jackson at Nuremberg: Presuppositions of the Nazi War Crimes Trials. – Israel Law Review. Vol. 28. Issue 4. P. 601-625. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700011778

50. Frilling T. A. 2014. Jewish Kapo in Auschwitz: History, Memory, and the Politics of Survivor. Waltham: Brandeis University Press. 340 p.

51. Garrod M. 2012. The Protective Principle of Jurisdiction Over War Crimes and Hollow Concept of Universality. – International Criminal Law Review. Vol. 12. No. 5. P. 763-826.

52. Grabenwater C. 2014. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Commentary. Oxford; Portland: C.H. Beck; Nomos; Hart. 600 p.

53. Green L. 1960. The Eichmann Case. – Modern Law Review. Vol. 23. P. 507-515.

54. Green L. 1963. The Maxim Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Eichmann Trial. – British Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 38. P. 457-471.

55. Hall C. K. 2006. Universal Jurisdiction: New Uses for an Old Tool. – Justice for Crimes against Humanity. Ed. by M. Lattimer and P. Sands. Oxford: Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. P. 47-72.

56. Hall C. K. 2003. Contemporary Universal Jurisdiction. – Human Rights and Criminal Justice for Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjorn Eide. Ed. by M. Bergsmo. Leiden;Boston: Martinuss Nijhoff Publishers. P. 111-138.

57. Harel I. 1975. The House on Garibaldi Street. London: Routledge. 287 p.

58. Harris D.J. 1998. Cases and Materials on International Law. London: Sweet&Maxwell.779 p.

59. Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights. Ed. by E. de Wet, J. Vidmar. 2012. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 330 p. DOI: DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199647071.001.0001

60. Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden: Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide. Ed. by M. Bergsmo. Leiden;Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2003. 825 p.

61. Inazumi M. 2005. Universal Jurisdiction in Modern International Law. Utrecht: Intersentia. 274 p.

62. Iraola R. 2011. Jurisdiction, Treaties, and Due Process. – Buffalo Law Review. Vol. 59. No. 3. P. 693-714.

63. Ireland-Piper D. 2017. Accountability in Extraterritoriality: A Comparative and International Law Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 208 p.

64. Jaspers K. Who Should Have Tried Eichmann? - Journal of International Criminal Justice. 2006. Vol. 4. No. 4. 853-858.

65. Jockusch L. 2021. Prosecuting “Crimes against Jewish People”: The Eichmann Trial and the History of a Legal Concept. – Eichmann Trial Reconsidered. Ed. by R. Wittmann. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. P. 75-103.

66. Kelsen H. 1943. Collective and Individual Responsibility in International Law with Particular Regard to Punishment of War Criminals. – California Law Review. Vol. 31. No. 5. P. 530-571.

67. Kelsen H. 1945. General Theory of State and Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 516 p.

68. Keren M. 1991. Ben-Gurion’s Theory of Sovereignty: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann. – David Ben-Gurion: Politics and Leadership in Israel. Ed. by R.W. Zweig. New York: Routledge. P. 38-51.

69. Kittichaisaree K. 2018. The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 400 p.

70. Kittrie N. 1964. A Post Mortem of the Eichmann Case - The Lessons for International Law. – Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol. 55. No.1. P. 16-28.

71. Kolb R. 2003. Théorie du Jus Cogens International. – Revue Belge de Droit Internationale. Vol. 36. No. 1. P. 5-55.

72. Koskenniemi M. 2002. Between Impunity and Show Trial. – Max-Planck Yearbook of UN Law. Vol. 6. P. 1-21.

73. Kovac M.A. 2002. Apprehension of War Crimes Indictees: Should the United Nations' Courts Outsource Private Actors to Catch Them? – Catholic University Law Review. Vol. 51. No. 2. P. 619-653.

74. Kress С. 2006. Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes and the Institute de droit International. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 561–585.

75. Lagerwall A. 2016. Le principe ex injuria jus non obitur en droit international. Bruxelles: Bruylant. 634 p.

76. Landis K.T. 1991. The Seizure of Noriega: A challenge KerFrisbie Doctrine. – American University International Law and Policy Journal. Vol. 6. Issue 4. P. 571-607.

77. Landsman S. 2012. The Eichmann Case and the Invention of the Witness-Driven Atrocity Trial. – Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 77-87.

78. Lasok D. 1962. The Eichmann Trial. – International & Comparative Law Quarterly. Vol. 11. Issue 2. P. 355- 374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/11.2.355

79. Lepard B. 2010. Customary International law: A New Theory with Practical Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 440 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804717

80. Linton S. 2009. The Role of Judges in Dealing with the Legacies of the Past. - The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence. 2009. Vol. I. New York: Oceana. P. 203-248.

81. Lippert D. 1962. The Eichmann Case and the Nuremberg Trials. – American Bar Association Journal. Vol. 48. No. 8. P. 738-741.

82. Lippman M. 2002. Genocide: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann and the Quest for Global Justice. – Buffalo Human Rights Law Review. Vol. 8. P. 45-121.

83. Liskofsky S. 1961. The Eichmann Case. – The American Jewish Year Book. Vol. 62. P. 199-208.

84. Longerich P. 2010. Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 645 p.

85. Macoto S. 2015. Expanding the Scope of Universal Jurisdiction through Municipal Law: From Piracy to the Crime of Aggression via Eichmann Trial. – Historical Origins of International Criminal Law. Volume 4. Ed. by M. Bergsmo [et. al.] Oslo: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher. P. 339-366.

86. Mann I. 2010. The Dual Foundation of Universal Jurisdiction: Towards a Jurisprudence for the “Court of Critique”. – Transnational Legal Theory. Vol. 1. Issue 4. P. 485-521.

87. Maogoto J. 2009. The Work of National Military Tribunals under Control Council Law 10. – The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko. Ed. by J. Doria, H.-P. Gasser, C. Basiouni. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. P. 51-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004163089.i-1122.21

88. Minerbi S. 2011. The Eichmann Trial Diary: A Chronicle of the Holocaust. New York : Enigma Books. 256 p.

89. Mitsilegas V. 2014. Article 49 – Principle of Legality and Proportionality of Criminal Offences and Penalties. – The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. Ed. by S. Peers [et al.]. Oxford; Portland: BECK-Hart-Nomos. P. 1394-1415.

90. Mohit A. 2006. The Customary Law of International Abductions: Limits and Boundaries. – Asian Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 11. P. 123-146.

91. Mulish H. 2009. Criminal case 40/61, the of Adolf Eichmann: an Eyewitness Account. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 208 p.

92. Musmanno M. 1961. The Eichmann Kommandos. Philadelphia: Macrae Smith. 288 p.

93. Mystris D. 2021. An African Union’s Rethinking of International Criminal Justice. Leiden;Boston:Brill Nijhoff. 328 p.

94. O’Keefe R. 2015. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 678 p.

95. Orakhelashvili A. 2003. Peremptory Norms and reparation for Internationally Wrongful Acts. – Baltic Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 3. P. 19-56.

96. Orakhelashvili A. 2008. Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 660 p.

97. Orakhelashvili A. 2015. Audience and Authority – The Merit of Doctrine. – Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 46. P. 115-145.

98. O’Sullivan A. 2017. Universal Jurisdiction in İnternational Criminal Law: The Debate and Battle foe Hegemony. - London; New York: Routledge. 234 p.

99. Parvikko T. 2000. Positivists Versus Moralists: The Eichmann Trial and International Law. – Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought. Vol. 4. P. 223–50. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7227/R.4.1.11

100. Paulussen C. 2010. Male Captus Bene Detentus? Surrendering Suspects to the International Criminal Court. Antwerp: Intersentia. 1195 p.

101. Pearlman M. 1963. The Capture and Trial of Adolf Eichmann. New York: Simon and Schuster. 666 p.

102. Powderly J. 2011. The Trials of Eichmann, Barbie and Finta. – Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. Ed. by W. Schabas, N. Bernaz. London; New York: Routledge. P. 33-50.

103. Pusse H. 2006. The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Tribunals. – International Review of the Red Cross. Vol. 88. No. 861. P. 65-86.

104. Ragazzi M. 1997. The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 264 p.

105. Randall K. 1998. Universal Jurisdiction under International Law. – Texas Law Review. Vol. 66. P. 785-810.

106. Reiss R. H. 1987. The Extradition of John Demjanjuk: War Crimes, Universality Jurisdiction, and the Political Offence Doctrine. – Cornell International Law Journal. Vol. 20. Issue 2. P. 281-315.

107. Reydams L. 2004. Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 286 p. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274260.001.0001

108. Roht-Arriaza N. 2001. The Pinochet Precedent and Universal Jurisdiction. – New England Law Review. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 311-319.

109. Rosenbaum E.M. 2012. The Eichmann Case and the Distortion of History. – Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review. Vol. 34. P.387-400.

110. Ryngaert C. 2015. Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 262 p.

111. Schabas W. 2012. Unimaginable Atrocities: Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 240 p. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199653072.001.0001

112. Schabas W. Retroactive Application of Genocide Convention. – University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Policy. 2010. Vol. 4. N 2. P. 36-59.

113. Schabas W. 2015. The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1308 p.

114. Scharf M. Customary International Law in Times of Fundamental Change: Recognizing Croatian Moments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. 228 p.

115. Schwabach A., Patchett S.A. 1993. Doctrine or Dictum: The Ker-Frisbie Doctrine and Official Abductions which Breach International Law. – University of Miami InterAmerican Law Review. Vol. 25. No. 4. P. 20-56.

116. Schwarzenberger G. 1962. The Eichmann Judgment: An Essay in Censorial Jurisprudence. – Current Legal Problems. Vol. 15. Issue 1. P. 248–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/15.1.248

117. Sclütter B. 2010. Developments in Customary International Law: Theory and the Practice of the International Court of Justice and the International ad hoc Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 370 p.

118. Shani Y. 2009. The Road to the Genocide Convention and Beyond. – The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Ed. by P. Gaeta. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 3-26.

119. Simentić J. 2019. To exclude or not to exclude, that is the question. Developments regarding bases for exclusion from refugee status in the EU. – German Law Journal. Vol. 20. Issue 1. P. 111-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.5

120. Singer I. 2013. Reductio ad Absurdum: The Kapo Trial Judgments’ Contribution to International Criminal Jurisprudence and Customary International Law. – Criminal Law Forum. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 235-258.

121. Söyler Y. 2015. Barcelona Traction davası ve uluslararası hukuka etkisi. – Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. Vol. XIX. P. 207-247.

122. Staker K. 2014. Jurisdiction. – International Law. Ed. by M. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 289-315.

123. Straschnov A. 1999. The Judicial System in Israel. - Tulsa Law Journal. Vol. 34. P.527-535.

124. Tams C. 2005. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 424 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494116

125. Tams C., Tzanakopoulos A. 2010. Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development. – Leiden Journal of International Law. Vol. 33. Issue 4. P. 781-800. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000361

126. Tan Y. 2021. The Rome Statute as Evidence of Customary International Law. Leiden;Boston: Brill Nijhoff. 488 p.

127. Tanaka Y. 2021. The Legal Consequences of Obligation Erga Omnes in International Law. – Netherlands International Law Review. Vol. 68. No.1. P. 1-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00184-9

128. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of refugees and Its 1967 Protocols: A Commentary. Ed. by A. Zimmermann. 2011. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1675 p. DOI: 10.1093/actrade/9780199542512.001.0001

129. The Arc of Due Process in American Constitutional Law. Ed. by E.T. Sullivan, T.M. Masarro. 2013. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 272 p.

130. The Law of War Crimes: National and International Approaches. Ed. by T. MacCormack, G. Simpson. 1997. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. 254 p.

131. The Nuremberg Trial and International Law. Ed. by G. Ginsburgs, V.N. Kudriavtsev. 1990. Dodrecht; Boston;London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.288 p.

132. The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. Ed. by A. Cassese. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1096 p.

133. The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression. Ed. by S. Barriga, C. Kress and L. Grover. 2012. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 835 p.

134. The United Nations Principles to Combat Impunity: A Commentary. Ed. by F. Haldemann, T. Unger. 2018. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 471 p. DOI: 10.1093/law/9780198743606.001.0001

135. Thirlway H. 2014. The Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 272 p.

136. Tomuschat Chr. 2006. The Legacy of Nuremberg. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 4. Issue 4. P. 830-844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql051

137. Trunk I. 1972. Judenrat: The Jewish Council in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 663 p.

138. Ukabiala N., Pickard D., Yamamoto A. 2021. Erga Omnes Partes before the International Court of Justice: From Standing to the Judgment on the Merits. – ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law. Vol. 27. Issue 2. P. 234-250

139. Universal Jurisdiction and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes under International Law. Ed. by S. Macedo. 2004. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. 392 p.

140. Urs P. 2021. Obligations Erga Omnes and the Question Standing before the International Court of Justice. – Leiden Journal of International Law. Vol. 34. Issue 2. P. 505-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156521000091

141. Van Siedregt E. 2012. Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 330 p. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560363.001.0001

142. Vlasic M., De Sousa J. P. 2015. The Use of Force by Private Parties against Suspect Pirates. – Prosecuting Maritime Piracy: Domestic Solution to International Crimes. Ed. by M. Scharf, M. Newton, M. Sterio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 119-149.

143. Webb P. 2020. House of Lords, Judgment, R. v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International Intervening) (No 3), 1999. - British Contribution to International Law (1915-2015). Ed. by J. Barrett, J.-P. Gauci. Leiden;Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. P. 1539-1560.

144. Weitz Y. 2009. In the Name of Six Million Accusers: Gideon Hausner as Attorney General and His Place in the Eichmann Trial. – Israel Studies. Vol.14. No. 2. P. 26-49.

145. Wenig J.M. 1997. Enforcing the Lessons of History: Israel Judges the Holocaust. – The Law of War Crimes: National and International Approaches. The Hague/Boston/London: Kluwer Law International. P. 103-122.

146. Wilson R. 2006. A History of the Role of Defense Counsel in International Criminal and War Crimes Tribunals. – Defenses in International Criminal Proceedings. Ed. by M. Bohlander, R. Boed, R. Wilson. New York: Transnational Publishers. Р. 31-66.

147. Woodhouse D. 2000. The Pinochet Case: A Legal and Constitutional Analysis. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 304 p.

148. Wright Q. 1947. The Law of the Nuremberg Trial. – American Journal of International Law. Vol. 41. Issue 1. P. 38-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2193853

149. Yablonka H., Tlamim M. 2003. The Development of Holocaust Consciousness in Israel: The Nuremberg, Kapos, Kastner, and Eichmann Trial. – Israel Studies. Vol. 8. No. 3. Р. 1-24.