en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
2 corrections found
The Canadian courts that accepted that verdict are the only ones in the world that recognize that legal defence.
This is incorrect. The International Criminal Court's Rome Statute expressly recognizes a limited superior-orders defense, and the ICRC's survey lists many other courts worldwide that have addressed or recognized the defense.
Full reasoning
This sentence overstates Canada's uniqueness.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court expressly includes a limited superior-orders defense in Article 33. That alone means Canada is not "the only" jurisdiction whose courts recognize such a defense.
In addition, the ICRC's Customary IHL Rule 155 survey cites case law on superior orders from numerous jurisdictions besides Canada, including Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. So the claim that only Canadian courts recognize the defense is contradicted by well-known international and comparative-law sources.
At most, the article could have made a narrower claim about a specific formulation or application in the Finta case. But as written — "the only ones in the world" — it is factually wrong.
2 sources
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 33 — Superior orders and prescription of law.
- Customary IHL - Rule 155. Defence of Superior Orders
The ICRC survey lists case law on superior orders from many jurisdictions, including Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
all defendants
This summary-table entry is inaccurate. Not all IMT defendants were found responsible at Nuremberg; three defendants were acquitted.
Full reasoning
In the summary table, the 1945 Nuremberg row lists "all defendants" alongside a yes in the column for being found responsible despite superior orders. That is not accurate.
Authoritative summaries of the International Military Tribunal say that three defendants were acquitted at Nuremberg. So it is wrong to characterize the Nuremberg outcome as involving all defendants being found responsible.
A more accurate summary would note that superior-orders arguments failed for many convicted defendants, but not all defendants were convicted.
2 sources
- The Trial of the Major War Criminals. | National Archives
The IMT rendered its judgment on twenty-one top officials of the Third Reich. The IMT sentenced most of the accused to death or to extensive prison terms and acquitted three.
- The Nuremberg Trial and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials (1945-1948) | Office of the Historian
The tribunal found nineteen individual defendants guilty... Three defendants were found not guilty, one committed suicide prior to trial, and one did not stand trial due to physical or mental illness.