Abstract
The word “guilt” has not been used by sociologists and historians since 1945, and is almost never mentioned in publications, even though in the everyday social context, people, ways of behaviour and circumstances are accused of being guilty of undesirable acts and events that are considered to be damaging. Blaming others is, however, far more common that acknowledging one’s own guilt. For many years, the major works by historians on the origins of the First World War have avoided any reflection about war guilt, preferring to talk about responsibility for the war. The two most important German-language, systematic, academic studies on the concept of guilt appeared in Switzerland in the field of political philosophy. In this text, the focus is above all on political-moral guilt in wars of aggression and mass murder, the increasing awareness of which interacts with the development of standards in criminal and international law that prohibits acts of aggression, genocide and severe violations of human rights
For wars of aggression, only the narrowest band of political, military and economic state leadership needs to be brought to account, whereas when it comes to mass murders, the people who carry them out should be brought before a court, alongside those who order them. There continues to be a vast discrepancy between the codification of the norms and their application in court, since generally, governments and their henchmen can only be punished after they have been toppled politically and have suffered a military defeat. Political-moral guilt in both major crimes is not justiciable, differs extremely widely among individuals, and is graded according to the degree of knowledge, the potential level of knowledge and social position. It arises from both actions taken and the failure to act. Since the Second World War, a certain socio-political learning process, albeit a limited one, has been taking place with regard to the condemnation of wars of aggression and mass murder, although even now, there are still more monuments dedicated to peace-breakers and mass murderers than there have been sentences pronounced against them in court and characterisations as criminals in the politics of commemoration.
The purpose of a public debate about political-moral guilt is not to blame another due to their behaviour that enables past major crimes, but to raise awareness of the ways in which future wars of aggression and mass murder can be facilitated by one’s own erroneous political behaviour, since in the age of the sovereignty of the people, non-political behaviour is no longer possible. Only a stronger sense of responsibility in civil society, in the state and among the world’s citizens, can prevent future major crimes.
Lecture given on 13.5.2019.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Schwan (1997, p. 10).
- 2.
Giordano (1998, p. 18).
- 3.
Giordano (1998, p. 13).
- 4.
Rummel (1994, p. 6). Rummel provides no figures for the number of unarmed people (civilians and prisoners of war) who have been killed or exposed to the risk of death during inter-state and civil wars.
- 5.
“For legal experts, guilt means being culpable. A person is guilty when the accusation is correct that they have behaved in an illegal manner, although they were capable of behaving legally… The everyday use of the term “guilt” differs from the legalistic one in just one aspect: the accusation relates to both actions and failures to act that conflict with the norms of the valid law, and to behaviour that violates other norms, norms of religion, morals, tact, convention and the functioning of communication and interaction.” “The moral issue is the issue which behaviour is correct and which is incorrect, and the issue of guilt is the issue of the existence and non-existence of responsibility” Schlink (2007, pp. 11–12 and 128).
- 6.
- 7.
The principle according to international law with regard to wars of aggression deals only with inter-state wars, the number of which has declined dramatically since 1945, while the involvement by other states in civil wars—be it on the side of the government or the opposition—has increased, see Petterson and Wallensteen (2015). Strangely enough, there is no discussion in the specialist literature as to whether support for an opposing civil war party should be classified as aggression by another state.
- 8.
Schabas (2005).
- 9.
However, this would only be possible in the 37 states (including Germany) that signed this part of the Statute.
- 10.
A person is considered to be a member of a state leadership when they are “in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State”, International Criminal Court (2011) Article 8bis Paragraph 1.
- 11.
In this spirit, the older international law also regarded a war of aggression as being the occupation and annexation of other states without more severe armed fighting (such as that of Luxembourg and Denmark by the German Reich in 1940), see Werle and Jeßberger (2016, pp. 681–719).
- 12.
International Criminal Court (2011) Article 8bis, Paragraph 2. On the previous debate surrounding the concept of aggression, see several contributions in: Politi and Nesi (2005, pp. 55–117), Werle and Jeßberger (2016, pp. 681–719), Hummrich (2001). On incorporation into the German Code of Crimes against International Law see Hoven (2014).
- 13.
United Nations (1948).
- 14.
According to more recent law, they are directed against any identifiable group for political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender-specific or other reasons, International Criminal Court (2011) Article 7, Paragraph 1 (h).
- 15.
Cramer (2011).
- 16.
- 17.
A preventive war, which is now regarded as being illegal in international law, is understood as being the beginning of a war months or years before the anticipated attack by an enemy. By contrast, a pre-emptive war, which is started directly (a few hours) before the imminent attack of an enemy, is justified in international law as being a legitimate form of defence, Kimminich (1997, p. 275).
- 18.
On the German (and Austrian) response to the National Socialist mass murders, which has fluctuated since 1933, see Giordano (1998). The author introduced the term “second guilt” (p. 10), i.e. the widespread guilt of denying and suppressing the Jewish and non-Jewish Holocaust after 1945 (pp. 133, 194, 210). Kittel (1993, pp. 11, 385) accuses Giordano’s school of thought as being “judgement that has almost no empirical foundation” by the “suppression theoreticians”.
- 19.
According to estimates, several hundred thousand Germans and Austrians, and a few hundred thousand citizens of occupied and allied states were involved in the murder of the European Jews, Pohl (2003, p. 29).
- 20.
Jaspers (1946).
- 21.
- 22.
Jaspers (1946, p. 10).
- 23.
Jaspers (1946).
- 24.
Jaspers (1946, p. 13, see also p. 54; in English: p. 28).
- 25.
See also the lectures Jahn (2015b).
- 26.
Hummrich (2001, pp. 19–29).
- 27.
League of Nations (1919) “The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League” (Article 10). “Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations” (Article 11).
- 28.
Geneva Protocol (1925).
- 29.
Lillian Goldman Law Library (2008).
- 30.
United Nations (1945, Articles 1, 2, 42, 51).
- 31.
United Nations General Assembly (1948).
- 32.
United Nations (1966).
- 33.
The expression was used by the International Court of Justice for Rwanda, Schabas (2009, p. 11). For the murder of a people (“Völkermord”), the Latinised form, “genocide”, was not used until after 1948.
- 34.
- 35.
Wikisource (2018).
- 36.
“The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies” Wikisource (2018, Art. 231).
- 37.
The International Military Tribunal demanded e.g. responsibility for “Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreement or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for thee accomplishment of any of the foregoing” (Article 6a), Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945).
- 38.
Darnstädt (2015).
- 39.
- 40.
United Nations (1948).
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
International Criminal Court (2011). The Court passed its first sentence with a jail term lasting many years against a Congolese militia leader, in July 2012.
- 45.
International Criminal Court (2011) Article 8bis.
- 46.
Bundesgesetzblatt (2016).
- 47.
German Bundestag (2017), Article 26, Paragraph 1.
- 48.
United Nations General Assembly (1974).
- 49.
International Criminal Court (2011) Article 8bis.
- 50.
Jahn (2015c).
- 51.
Gudrun Kämper regards Jaspers’ “The Question of German Guilt” as being “the most important contribution to the very many contemporary analyses of guilt” in Germany, Kämper (2007, p. 302).
- 52.
Schefczyk (2012, p. 1).
- 53.
For a detailed discussion on the moral intergenerational obligation to recompense the victims of major crimes and their descendants, see Schefczyk (2012, pp. 263–368).
- 54.
- 55.
For example Neumann (1977, p. 669).
- 56.
However, the problem of excessive demands on citizens of the world arises, for example with regard to the atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Enzensberger (1993).
- 57.
According to Michael Schefczyk, in an unconvincing way, it is possible to also use natural justice norms as a yardstick for responsible action, depending on the first point in time that they were mentioned, Schefczyk (2012, p. 71).
- 58.
Gesine Schwan emphasises the high degree of importance of joint action as encouragement for individuals and as a constraint on the excessive demands on individual responsibility, Schwan (1997, p. 222).
- 59.
Thus, the Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker said in his famous speech of 8 May 1985: “There is no such thing as the guilt or innocence of an entire nation. Guilt is, like innocence, not collective but personal. There is discovered or concealed personal guilt. There is guilt which people acknowledge or deny. Everyone who directly experienced that era should today quietly ask himself about his involvement then” Von Weizsäcker (1985).
- 60.
This figure was calculated from numerous estimates Rummel (1994, p. 3).
- 61.
Schefczyk (2012, p. 224). The author adds: “The fact that no-one was sanctioned because they decided not to participate in crimes does not necessarily mean, however, that those in question did not participate in the belief in the crimes; otherwise, they would have been punished most severely.”
- 62.
Kant (1970, p. 47).
- 63.
Pinker (2011).
- 64.
“Failure to collaborate in organizing power relations, in the struggle for power for the sake of serving the right, creates basic political guilt and moral guilt at the same time” Jaspers (1946, p. 19).
- 65.
Gandhi, Young India, 10 Nov. 1920.
References
Akçam T (1996) Armenien und der Völkermord. Die Istanbuler Prozesse und die türkische Nationalbewegung. Hamburger Edition, Hamburg
Bienk-Koolman S (2009) Die Befugnis des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen zur Einsetzung von ad hoc-Strafgerichtshöfen. Zur Rechtmäßigkeit der Einsetzung des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes für das ehemalige Jugoslawien sowie zum nachfolgenden Wandel in Praxis und Rechtsauffassung. Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Buber M (2008) Schuld und Schuldgefühle (1957) (Guilt and guilt feelings). Werkausgabe 10:127–152
Bundesgesetzblatt (2016) Gesetz zur Einführung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches vom 26. Juni 2002, bgbl102s2254_13757 und Gesetz zur Änderung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches vom 22. Dezember 2016, bgbl116s3150_74792
Buruma I (1994) The wages of guilt: memories of war in Germany and Japan. Farar Straus Giroux, New York
Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945). https://www.legal-tools.org/en/doc/64ffdd/
Cramer J (2011) Belsen Trial 1945. Der Lüneburger Prozeß gegen Wachpersonal der Konzentrationslager Auschwitz und Bergen-Belsen. Wallstein, Göttingen
Darnstädt T (2015) Nürnberg. Menschheitsverbrechen vor Gericht 1945. Piper, Munich
Deutscher Bundestag (2017) Grundgesetz. https://www.bundestag.de/grundgesetz
Enzensberger HM (1993) Ausblick auf den Bürgerkrieg. Über den täglichen Massenmord und die überforderte Moral. Der Spiegel, 21 June, p 175
Fall A (2017) Le traitement juridictionnel du crime de génocide et des crimes contre l’humanité commis au Rwanda. L’Harmattan, Paris
Geneva Protocol (1925) Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/1925-geneva-protocol/
Giordano R (1998) Die zweite Schuld oder Von der Last Deutscher zu sein, New edition. Rasch and Röhring, Hamburg
Heilmann D (2006) Die Effektivität des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs. Die Rolle der Vereinten Nationen und des Weltsicherheitsrates. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Hoven E (2014) Der Tatbestand der Aggression – Wege zur Implementierung der Ergebnisse von Kampala in das Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. In: Safferling C, Kirsch S (eds) Völkerstrafrechtspolitik. Praxis des Völkerstrafrechts. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 339–372
Hummrich M (2001) Der völkerrechtliche Straftatbestand der Aggression. Historische Entwicklung, Geltung und Definition im Hinblick auf das Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes. Nomos, Baden-Baden
International Criminal Court (2011) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/resourcelibrary/official-journal/rome-statute.aspx
Jahn E (1987) Geschichte – Schuld – Frieden. Kolyma, Auschwitz, Hiroshima und der potentielle “nukleare Holocaust”. Loccumer Protokolle 66/87:79–115
Jahn E (1990) Zur Phänomenologie der Massenvernichtung. Kolyma, Auschwitz, Hiroshima und der potentielle nukleare Holocaust. Leviathan 18(1):7–38
Jahn E (2005) On the phenomenology of mass extermination in Europe. A comparative perspective on the Holodomor. In: Sapper M, Weichsel V (eds) Sketches of Europe: old lands, new worlds. Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin
Jahn E (2015a) Commemoration of genocide as a contemporary political weapon: the example of the ottoman genocide of the Armenians. In: International politics: political issues under debate, vol 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 219–235
Jahn E (2015b) The peace congress of the socialist international in Basel, November 24–25, 1912 and a century of wars and striving for peace since the peace congress of Basel in 1912. In: World political challenges: political issues under debate, vol 3. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 55–89
Jahn E (2015c) Kosovo and elsewhere. Military interventions in defence of human rights (‘humanitarian interventions’). In: International politics: political issues under debate, vol 1. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 43–57
Jaspers K (1946) Die Schuldfrage (The question of German guilt). Artemis, Zürich
Kämper H (2007) ‘Die Schuldfrage’ von Karl Jaspers (1946). In: Hermanns F, Holly W (eds) Linguistische Hermeneutik. Theorie und Praxis des Verstehens. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp 301–322
Kant I (1970) Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht (1784). In: Werke, vol 9. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp 31–50
Kersten M (2016) Justice in conflict: the effects of the international criminal court’s interventions on ending wars and building peace. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kimminich O (1997) Einführung in das Völkerrecht, 6th edn. A. Francke, Tübingen
Kittel M (1993) Die Legende von der ‘zweiten Schuld’. Vergangenheitsbewältigung in der Ära Adenauer. Ullstein, Berlin
League of Nations (1919) Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dd8b9854.html
Lillian Goldman Law Library (2008) Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kbpact.asp
Neumann F (1977) Behemoth. Struktur und Praxis des Nationalsozialismus 1933–1944. Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main
Osten P (2003) Der Tokioter Kriegsverbrecherprozeß und die japanische Rechtswissenschaft. Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin
Petterson T, Wallensteen P (2015) Armed conflicts, 1946–2014. J Peace Res 52(4):536–550
Pinker S (2011) The better angels of our nature: why violence has declined. Viking, New York
Pohl D (2003) Verfolgung und Massenmord in der NS-Zeit 1933–1945. Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft, Darmstadt
Politi M, Nesi G (eds) (2005) The international criminal court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate, Aldershot
Roggemann H (1998) Die internnationalen Strafgerichtshöfe. Einführung, Rechtsgrundlagen, Dokumente, 2nd edn. Berlin-Verlag Arno Spitz, Berlin
Rummel RJ (1994) Power, genocide and mass murder. J Peace Res 31(1):1–10
Schabas WA (2005) Origins of the criminalization of aggression: how crimes against peace became the ‘supreme international crime’. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The international criminal court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 17–32
Schabas WA (2009) Genocide in international law: the crime of crimes, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schabas W (2011) An introduction to the international criminal court, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schefczyk M (2012) Verantwortung für historisches Unrecht. Eine philosophische Untersuchung. De Gruyter, Berlin
Schlink B (2007) Vergangenheitsschuld. Beiträge zu einem deutschen Thema. Diogenes, Zürich
Schwan G (1997) Politik und Schuld. Die zerstörerische Macht des Schweigens. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main
Steinberger-Fraunhofer T (2008) Internationaler Strafgerichtshof und Drittstaaten. Eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Position der USA. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Strizek H (2015) Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof für Ruanda in Arusha – Tansania. Eine politisch-historische Bilanz. Lang, Frankfurt am Main
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/
United Nations (1948) Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx
United Nations (1966) International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and international covenant on civil and political rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/InternationalLaw.aspx
United Nations General Assembly (1948) The universal declaration of human rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
United Nations General Assembly (1974) Definition of aggression, A/RES/29/3314. http://www.un-documents.net/a29r3314.htm
Vesper-Gräske M (2016) Zur Hierarchie der Völkerrechtsverbrechen nach dem Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Volkmann C (2009) Die Strafverfolgung des Völkermordes nach dem Weltrechtsprinzip im internationalen Strafrecht und Völkerstrafrecht. Untersucht am Beispiel der deutschen Rechtsordnung. Lang, Frankfurt am Main
von Lingen K (2018) ‘Crimes against Humanity’. Eine Ideengeschichte der Zivilisierung von Kriegsgewalt 1864–1945. Schöningh, Paderborn
Von Weizsäcker R (1985) Commemorative event in the plenary hall of the German Bundestag to mark the 40th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe. https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Reden/2015/02/150202-RvW-Rede-8-Mai-1985-englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Werle G, Jeßberger F (2016) Völkerstrafrecht, 4th edn. Mohr, Tübingen
Wikisource (2018) Treaty of Versailles (1919). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jahn, E. (2020). Guilt in Wars of Aggression and Mass Murders: Who Is the Perpetrator, Who Is Responsible?. In: War and Compromise Between Nations and States. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34131-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34131-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34130-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34131-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)