Is it true that the German army, invading Belgium and France in August 1914, perpetrated brutal atrocities? Or are accounts of the deaths of thousands of unarmed civilians mere fabrications constructed by fanatically anti-German Allied propagandists? Based on research in the archives of Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, this pathbreaking book uncovers the truth of the events of autumn 1914 and explains how the politics of propaganda and memory have shaped radically different versions of that truth. John Horne and Alan Kramer mine military reports, official and private records, witness evidence, and war diaries to document the crimes that scholars have long denied: a campaign of brutality that led to the deaths of some 6500 Belgian and French civilians. Contemporary German accounts insisted that the civilians were guerrillas, executed for illegal resistance. In reality this claim originated in a vast collective delusion on the part of German soldiers. The authors establish how this myth originated and operated, and how opposed Allied and German views of events were used in the propaganda war. They trace the memory and forgetting of the atrocities on both sides up to and beyond World War II. Meticulously researched and convincingly argued, this book reopens a painful chapter in European history while contributing to broader debates about myth, propaganda, memory, war crimes, and the nature of the First World War.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has shown the world the critical importance of whether and how to punish heads of state, heads of government, and sundry strong men when accused of crimes of aggression, genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. In End of Immunity, former President of the International Criminal Court, Chile Eboe-Osuji, probes the history and theory of the concept of immunity for heads of state, underscoring tribunal achievements, pointing out gaps in the existing framework of accountability and the hypocrisies that produced them, and offering workable solutions to the loopholes that government leaders still use to escape consequences today. Eboe-Osuji traces the development of international law from the pre-World War I era that left wars of aggression as the prerogative of sovereigns able to wage them through the peacetime conferences of the Hague at the turn of the 20th century, the momentous Article 227 of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, which communicated the resolve of the Allies and Associated Powers to prosecute German Emperor and King of Prussia Kaiser Wilhelm II before an international tribunal, how the legal norms applied in the post-WWII Nuremberg trial transformed the norms of modern international law, how 1990’s Africa breathed new life into arguments against immunity for heads of state, and how modern-day Russia flouts those laws with Putin’s war of aggression on Ukraine. Going as far back as the Middle Ages and the ancient doctrine of the divine right of kings, and concluding with a fresh new proposal for the ways in which international law can be shored up to prosecute those leaders who wage wars of aggression, Eboe-Osuji investigates the journey of international law’s rejection of immunity for anyone – including heads of state in particular – when they are suspected or accused of atrocities that international law has proscribed as crimes. The result is the definitive account of a profoundly vital principle for international relations and global humanity.

In this classic text, Peter Maguire follows America's legal relationship with war, both before and after the Nuremberg trials of the 1940s. Maguire argues that the precedents set by the trials were nothing less than revolutionary, and he traces the development of these new attitudes throughout American history. The text has been revised throughout, with a new preface and postscript discussing the George W. Bush administration's attempt to rewrite the laws of war after 9/11. Maguire connects these efforts to the decline in American power and reputation. Praise for the previous edition: "[An] intriguing historical analysis."—Harvard Law Review "Outstanding... impressive... a terrific book."—American Historical Review "A five-star accomplishment that will intrigue the reader and prove that, in history, truth is often more fascinating than fiction."—H. W. William Caming, former Nuremberg prosecutor "Perceptive."—Journal of American History "An important and fascinating study, marked by impressive research and moral passion."—Ronald Steel, University of Southern California "A 'must read' for all those interested in international criminal law, war crimes, and war crime trials."—J. C. Watkins Jr., University of Alabama "A sobering exploration of the hypocrisy and double standards that shape the laws of war. Maguire reveals the conflict between American ideology and American imperialism, the Faustian compromises made by our leaders during their elusive quest for justice."—Iris Chang, author of The Rape of Nanking "A pioneering account.... Law and War goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century to trace the history of modern war crimes, their shock value, and the efforts made to bring their perpetrators to account."—Thomas Keenan, Bardian

When people think of the Holocaust, they think of Auschwitz and Dachau. Not of Russia or the Ukraine, and certainly not a town called Kharkov. But in reality, the first war crime trial against the Nazis was in this tiny Ukrainian town, which is fitting, because it is where the Holocaust actually began. Judgment Before Nuremberg is also the story of Dawson’s personal journey to this place, to the scene of the crime, and the discovery of the trial which began the tortuous process of avenging the murder of his grandparents, great-grandparents and tens of thousands of fellow Ukrainians consumed at the dawn of the Shoah, a moment and crime now largely cloaked in darkness.

The history of international criminal justice told through the revealing stories of some of its primary intellectual figures.

The American presidency has long tested the capacity of the system of checks and balances to constrain executive power, especially in times of war. While scholars have examined presidents starting military conflicts without congressional authorization or infringing on civil liberties in the name of national security, Stuart Streichler focuses on the conduct of hostilities. Using the treatment of war-on-terror detainees under President George W. Bush as a case study, he integrates international humanitarian law into a constitutional analysis of the repercussions of presidential war powers for human rights around the world. Putting President Bush’s actions in a wider context, Presidential Accountability in Wartime begins with a historical survey of the laws of war, with particular emphasis on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal. Streichler then reconstructs the decision-making process that led to the president’s approval of interrogation methods that violated Geneva’s mandate to treat wartime captives humanely. While taking note of various accountability options—from within the executive branch to the International Criminal Court—the book illustrates the challenge in holding presidents personally responsible for violating the laws of war through an in-depth analysis of the actions taken by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the public in response. In doing so, this book not only raises questions about whether international humanitarian law can moderate wartime presidential behavior but also about the character of the presidency and the American constitutional system of government.