5cjxburmr

prosecuted under the MEJA or the War Crimes Act rather than the Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice.18.19.4.2 Efforts to Maximize Court-Martial Jurisdiction Over Persons Who AreMembers of the Armed Forces. Where the United States and a foreign State both claimjurisdiction over a service member’s conduct, DoD policy has been to make efforts to maximizethe exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over persons subject to the Uniform Code of MilitaryJustice to the extent possible under applicable agreements. 26318.20 PROSECUTION IN INTERNATIONAL AND HYBRID COURTSIn some cases, the prosecution of individuals for violations of the law of war has beenundertaken in international tribunals or hybrid tribunals that mix elements of national andinternational law.The jurisdiction and procedures of these tribunals vary from tribunal to tribunal, and maydepend on applicable treaties and customary international law. In general, the decisions of thesetribunals are not binding as precedent on the United States, including U.S. courts. 264 However,in some cases, it may be appropriate to consider their decisions as persuasive authority.18.20.1 Post-World War II International Military Tribunals. After World War II, theUnited Kingdom, France, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics soughtto try the major European Axis war criminals. Established by the London Agreement of August8, 1945, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg conducted the landmark Trial of MajorWar Criminals, with 21 defendants, in Nuremberg, Germany from November 1945 - October1946. 265 A similar tribunal was established in Tokyo by U.S. General MacArthur in his role asSupreme Allied Commander to try major Japanese war criminals in the Far East. 266263 For example, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL II-10 (Discussion of R.C.M. 201(d)) (2012) (“As a matter ofpolicy, efforts should be made to maximize the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over persons subject to the codeto the extent possible under applicable agreements.”). See also DOD DIRECTIVE 5525.1, DoD Status of ForcesPolicy and Information, 3 (Aug. 7, 1979, Certified Current as of Nov. 21, 2003) (“It is the policy of the Departmentof Defense to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the rights of United States personnel who may be subject tocriminal trial by foreign courts and imprisonment in foreign prisons.”).264 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2441 note (“No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule ofdecision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of suchsection 2441.”).265 Agreement by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government ofthe United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Unionof Soviet Socialist Republics for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis,art. 2, Aug. 8, 1945, 82 UNTS 280, 282 (“The constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the International MilitaryTribunal shall be those set out in the Charter annexed to this agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part ofthis Agreement.”).266 See Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Special Proclamation: Establishment ofan International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Jan. 19, 1946, 4 BEVANS 20, 21 (“Now, therefore, I, DouglasMacArthur, as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, by virtue of the authority so conferred upon me, in orderto implement the Term of Surrender which requires the meting out of stern justice to war criminals, do order andprovide as follows: ARTICLE 1. There shall be established an International Military Tribunal for the Far East for the1108