The International War Crimes Tribunal durin j
i g€ the session held at Stockholm from the end to the 10th May 1967, studied the two following questions included in its programme, adopted in London on the 15 November 1966: "Nas the United States Government (and the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Korea) committed acts of aggression according to international law?" "Has there been bombardment of targets of a purely civilian character, for example hospitals, schools, sanatoria, dams, etc., and on what scale has this occurred?" Having heard the qualified representatives of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and noted the cfficial refusal of the government of the United States of America to make known its point of view, and this despite the various appeals addressed to it, Having heard the various «reporters, the experts, numerous witnesses, including members of the investigating teams which it had itself sent to Vietnam, as well as Vietnamese victims of the war. Having examined several written, photographic and cinematographic documents, together with numerous exhibits, and having decided on publication of the whole of its documentation, Having heard the highly valuable summing up report of Mr. Lelio Basso, considers itself able to take the following decisions: On the first question Resort to force in international relations has been prohibited by numerous international agreements, the chief of which is the 1928 Pact of Paris, known as the Briand-Kellog Pact. In its article 2, the United Nations Charter solemnly recalled the said principle immediately after the Second world War. Article 6 of the Statute of Nuremberg qualified as crimes against peace "the conduct of, preparation for, starting or pursuit of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, pledges or agreements, or participation in a concerted plan, or plot for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing acts." Finally, it must be recalled, as in the United Nations resolution of December 1960, that all peoples have fundamental rights to national independence, to sovereignty, to respect of the integrity of their territory, and that breaches of these fundamental rights may be regarded as crimes against the national existence of a people.
The accession to independence and to national existence of the a a Vietnam dates back to 2 September 1945. This independence was ca. ae question by the old colonial power. ‘The war of national liberation n embarked upon ended with the victory of the Vietnam army. The Geneva Agreements of the 20th and 2ist July 1954, intended eee a end to the previous conflict, created in Vietnam a state of law . resp of which was incumbent on all, and particularly on the United sta -“ fue These Agreements recognised the guarantees, independence, unity and = torial integrity of Vietnam (Articles 6 and 7 of the final Declaration). Although a line of demarcation divided the country into two parts on a level with the 17th parallel, it was expressly stipulated that as the essential aim of this division was to settle military questions, it was of a provisional nature "and could in no way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." (Article 6 of the final Declaration).
The Geneva Agreements stipulated that general elections should take place over the whole of the country in July 1956 under the supervision of an international commission, and that consultations on this subject were to take place between the competent representative authorities of the two zones as from July 1955. The Agreements specifically excluded all. reprisals or discrimination against persons and organisations by reason of their activities during the previous hostilities (Article 14 of the Armistice Agreement). They formally prohibited the introduction of fresh troops, of military personnel, fresh arms and munitions, as well as the installation of military bases (Article 16 of the Armistice Agreement) and the inclusion of Vietnam in military alliances, this applying to the two zones (Art. 9 of the final Declaration). This state of law, intended to create a peaceful situation in Vietnam, was replaced by a state of war in consequence of successive violations of the various aforesaid stipulations of the Geneva Agreements. For the reasons set forth hereunder the Tribunal considers that the responsibility for these violations and for the passage to a state of war lies with the government of the United States of America. It transpires from the information of a. historical and diplomatic nature that has been brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal:
- that numerous proofs exist of the American intention prior to 1954 to dominate Vietnam; - that the Diem government was set up in Saigon by American agents several weeks before the conclusion of the Geneva Agreements; - that the Saigon authorities subservient to the United States systematically violated the provisions of the Geneva Agreements which prohibited reprisals, as has been established on several occasions by the International Control Commission; - that in defiance of the Geneva Agreements the United States has, since 1954, introduced into Vietnam increasing quantities of military equipment and personnel and has set up bases there.
The elections that were fixed for July 1956 and which were to j of consultations in July 1955 did not take place in spite ef suntan tatioe matic notes from the government of the Democratic Republie of Vietnam calling for the said consultations, Information from United States' sourees makes it possible to ascribe to the U.S.A. the refusal by Saigon to respect the most essential provisions of the Geneva Agreements. In this manner there was created in South Vietnam a situation of foreign intrusion by force against which the people of Vietnam had to launch a struggle of national liberation in a political form until 1959 and in the form of an armed struggle since that date, a struggle led by the National liberation Front of South Vietnam since 1960, which has succeeded in coneae vastly greater territories than those controlled by the United ates. This attack against the South was followed by an attack against the North, begun in 1964, and intensified since 1965 in the form of aerial bombardments and naval and land shellings in circumstances which form the subject of the second question studied by the Tribunal. The United States has not ecased to increase the power of these attacks by practising what it has itself called a policy of escalation, The Tribunal has made a point of examining scrupulously the arguments put forward in American official documents to justify the legality of their intervention in Vietnam. Special attention has been paid to the document entitled: "Juridical Memorandum on the legality of the participation of the United States in the defence of Vietnam", which document was submitted to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on the 4 March 1966. The main argument formulated by this text consists in claiming that the American intervention in Vietnam merely constitutes aid to the Saigon government against aggression from the North. Such argument is untenable both in law and in fact. In law, it is hardly necessary to recall that Vietnam constitutes a sin le nation which can with difficulty be seen as an aggressor against itself.
The fact is that no proof of this alleged aggression has ever been produced. The figures stated of infiltration of personnel from the North into the South, often contradictory, mixing up armed men and wmnarmed men, are thoroughly disputable and could in no case justify the plea of legitimate defence provided for in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, an Article, moreover, none of the other conditions of which are complied with. From the foregoing it follows that the United States bears the responsibility for the use of force in Vietnam and that it has in consequence committed a crime of aggression against that country, a crime against peace. It has therefore violated the provisions of International Law outlawing the use of force in international relations, in particular the Fact of Paris of 1928, the so-called Briand-Kellog Pact, of which it was however the author, and the United Nations Charter (Article 2, para.4). This violation of the general principles has been accompanied by violation of the special Agreements relating to the territory in question, Vietnam - that is to say, the Geneva Agreements of July 1954.
. i ited States has undeniably committed a crime against rn soe o ig an of Article 6 of the Statute of Nuremberg, a oe cae