Common design

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common design is a legal institution anchored in the Anglo-American legal tradition, which is based on the conspiracy theory . This charge of guilt was transferred to international law and was used in the war crimes trials after the end of the Second World War . Common design was the American counterpart to the British conspiracy .

definition

The common design concerned the manner of participating in the crime of violating international martial law . For example, during the Dachau concentration camp trials, the defendants were accused of approvingly participating in a system of killings, mistreatment and inhuman neglect. The prosecution had to prove that such a system existed and that “each of the defendants was aware of this system, that he knew what was happening to the inmates, and had to prove to everyone that he was in his place Administration, who supported the organization of the camp through its behavior, its activity, the functioning of this system, participated in this functioning ”. If this proof was provided, then this entailed a penalty as approving participation; the individual sentencing varied according to the type and extent of this participation. This legal institution was not familiar in the European legal tradition. In German criminal law, it is comparable to the mutual attribution of contributions in the context of complicity .

prehistory

Since the US prosecution was unable to negotiate genocide as part of war crimes , Lt. Col. Barneys from the US Department of War and a Rabbi Wise cited conspiracy theory as a solution to this problem . After lengthy negotiations between the Allies , this legal construct was transferred to international law and used in war crimes trials. The genocide was defined as part of a “superordinate German war planning” in which all members of certain National Socialist organizations and institutions took part in a conspiracy. If membership of an organization, such as the SS or Gestapo , or membership of an institution, such as activity in a concentration camp, was proven, the accused could also be held responsible for the actions of others in the context of a conspiracy. The defendants' appeal to order was thus excluded from the outset. Other principles included the waiver of the immunity of state representatives and the special accountability of superiors who were held liable per se for the actions of their subordinates. The conspiracy theory or common design played a major role in the Nuremberg trial against the main war criminals and its successor trials. This legal construct was also used in the Western Allied concentration camp trials. The legal norm of conspiracy was already applied in the Bergen-Belsen Trial , which took place in Lüneburg from September 17, 1945 to November 17, 1945 before a British military court .

Differentiation between common design and conspiracy

Although common design and conspiracy are based on the same legal idea, there are still marginal differences. For example, a conspiracy, in contrast to a joint project, requires proof of joint planning of the alleged crime. With common design, on the other hand, the prosecution has to prove that the individual defendants actually came together for the purpose of committing the crime.

literature

  • Wolfgang Form: Judicial Policy Aspects of Western Allied War Crimes Trials 1942–1950. In: Ludwig Eiber , Robert Sigl (eds.): Dachau Trials - Nazi crimes before American military courts in Dachau 1945–1948. Wallstein, Göttingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-8353-0167-2 .
  • Ute Stiepani: The Dachau Trials and their significance in the context of the Allied prosecution of Nazi crimes. In: Gerd R. Ueberschär : The allied trials against war criminals and soldiers 1943–1952. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1999, ISBN 3-596-13589-3 .
  • Robert Sigel: In the interests of justice. The Dachau war crimes trials 1945–1948. Campus, Frankfurt am Main 1992, ISBN 3-593-34641-9 .
  • Holger Lessing: The first Dachau trial (1945/46). Nomos, Baden-Baden 1993, ISBN 3-7890-2933-5 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Michael S. Bryant: Nazi Crimes and Their Punishment, 1943-1950. A Short History with Documents . Hackett Publishing, Cambridge 2020, ISBN 978-1-62466-861-6 , pp. 154-173.
  2. ↑ Robert Sigel: In the interests of justice. The Dachau war crimes trials 1945–1948. Frankfurt am Main 1992, p. 44.
  3. ↑ Cf. Florian Freund : The Dachau Mauthausen Trial. In: Documentation archive of Austrian resistance, yearbook 2001. Vienna 2001, pp. 35–66.
  4. ↑ See Wolfgang Form: Judicial Policy Aspects of Western Allied War Crimes Trials 1942–1950. in: Ludwig Eiber, Robert Sigl (eds.): Dachau trials - Nazi crimes before American military courts in Dachau 1945–1948. Göttingen 2007, p. 52f.
    Cf. Robert Sigel: In the interests of justice. The Dachau war crimes trials 1945–1948. Frankfurt am Main 1992, pp. 28f.
  5. ^ Holger Lessing: The first Dachau trial (1945/46). Nomos, Baden-Baden 1993, p. 104