Question

The International Law Commission (ILC) concluded that its task, as directed by General Assembly resolution 177 (II), was primarily:

• A. To determine the extent to which the Nuremberg principles constituted principles of international law.
• B. To formulate the Nuremberg principles, without expressing an appreciation of their status as principles of international law.
• C. To assess whether the Charter and judgment were already an expression of positive international law at the time of the Tribunal's establishment.
• D. To formulate the general principles of law on which the provisions of the Charter and the Tribunal's decisions were based.
• A. Narrowing the application of the principle to exclude high State officials.
• B. Adding the condition that "a moral choice was in fact possible" to the accused.
• C. Eliminating the reference to the order being considered in mitigation of punishment.
• D. Formulating the principle in general terms, unlike the Charter's specific context.
• A. Persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds was not yet recognized as an international crime.
• B. It could not be satisfactorily proved that these acts were committed in execution of, or in connection with, a crime within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
• C. The definition of crimes against humanity in the Charter explicitly excluded acts committed before the outbreak of the war.
• D. International law at the time imposed duties only on States, not on individuals, for these types of crimes.
• A. The Charter of the Tribunal had no definition of "war of aggression".
• B. Members feared that every combatant in uniform might be charged with the crime.
• C. The Tribunal had not made a clear distinction between "planning" and "preparation".
• D. The General Assembly had requested a more precise definition for use in future conventions.
• A. Whether the judicial organ should be created only for the trial of persons charged with genocide versus all international crimes.
• B. Whether the creation of the organ required an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations versus being possible through a convention open to all States.
• C. Whether the establishment of the organ was desirable and possible versus being undesirable due to its likely ineffectiveness against grave international crimes.
• D. Whether an international criminal court should have a deterrent effect versus serving only to ensure the rule of law in the community of States.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to identify the primary task of the International Law Commission (ILC) as described in the provided text.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The first paragraph of the passage explicitly defines the ILC's role. It states, "The ILC's task was to merely formulate the principles not to express an appreciation of them as principles of International law since they had already been affirmed by the General Assembly." This sentence directly corresponds to option (B). The other options propose different tasks, such as determining the extent of the principles (A), assessing the existing law (C), or formulating general principles (D), which are not what the text describes as the ILC's primary mandate.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Based on the direct statement in the text, the ILC's task was to formulate the principles without appraising them. Therefore, option (B) is the correct answer.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks how Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles, as described in the text, differs from the concept of superior orders in Article 8 of the Nuremberg Tribunal's Charter (which is implied to be the baseline).
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The text defines Principle IV as: "Acting pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." The crucial part of this formulation is the final clause: "provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." This introduces a specific condition or qualification to the rule on superior orders. This condition is the key innovation or clarification presented in Principle IV. Option (B) directly captures this addition. The other options are not supported by the text's description of Principle IV.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The distinguishing feature of Principle IV mentioned in the passage is the addition of the "moral choice" condition. Thus, option (B) is the correct answer.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the primary reason why the Nuremberg Tribunal could not prosecute acts committed in Germany before 1939 as "crimes against humanity."
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage defines "Crimes against humanity" under Principle VI. The definition includes a critical condition: these acts are crimes "...when done in execution of or in connection with a crime against peace or a war crime." Since the war (a prerequisite "war crime" or "crime against peace") began in 1939, any acts committed before that date could not be linked to it. Therefore, the very definition provided in the Charter of the Tribunal created a temporal limitation, effectively excluding pre-war acts. Option (C) accurately reflects this. While option (B) is related, option (C) is more precise as it points to the definitional constraint in the Charter itself as the root cause.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The definitional requirement of a connection to a war crime or crime against peace meant that acts before the war's outbreak in 1939 were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction for crimes against humanity. Therefore, option (C) is the correct answer.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks for the reason behind the ILC's specific clarification of the phrase "waging of a war of aggression."
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Under the section for "Crimes against peace," the passage states: "The ILC understands the term 'waging of a war of aggression' to refer only to high-ranking military personnel and high State officials." This clarification limits the application of the crime to leadership figures. The logical reason for such a limitation is to avoid charging every single soldier or low-level combatant who participates in a war. This directly addresses the concern that an undefined term could lead to mass prosecutions of all combatants. Option (B) encapsulates this fear.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The ILC's clarification was to restrict responsibility to high-level officials, thus preventing the charge from being applied to every ordinary soldier. This indicates the underlying reason was the fear expressed in option (B).

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
This question asks to identify the core of the debate within the ILC about establishing an international court.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The final paragraph of the passage describes this debate. It says the ILC considered the "desirability and possibility" of such an organ. It then presents the two opposing views: "While some members questioned its effectiveness, particularly for grave international crimes, others argued that the creation of such a jurisdiction was desirable as an effective contribution to world peace and security..." This directly outlines a debate between those who found it desirable and those who doubted its effectiveness. Option (C) perfectly summarizes this contrast.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The text explicitly frames the debate around the desirability and potential effectiveness of an international judicial organ. Therefore, option (C) is the correct answer.