Outline: Adolf Eichmann

Linda Ostermann

POLI 480: International Organization

                                                                                                       Professor: Mark Shirk

11/20/2013 

Adolf Eichmann in Argentina: A violation of Israel’s sovereignty

Did Israel violate Argentina’s territorial sovereignty by abducting Adolf Eichmann without the approval of Argentina’s government?

            Although it could be argued that Argentina’s territorial sovereignty was violated,

Argentina violated Israel’s sovereignty first by granting Eichmann exile who was not only a criminal but also one of the most world-wanted Nazis. 

  

            Otto Adolf Eichmann was a SS leader in Nazi Germany and was responsible for mass deportations of Jews into ghettos and extermination camps. One of his major assignments was to manage the Auschwitz Concentration camp in Poland. After World War II, Eichmann fled to Argentina. He used a fraudulently laissez-passer to leave Europe and lived in Argentina under a false identity. On May 11, 1960 Adolf Eichmann was taken to Israel by Israeli nationals. In Israel, Eichmann was charged with “crimes against the Jewish people” and “crimes against humanity”. He was executed in June 1960. The removal of Eichmann by Israel led to many controversies around the world. Israel’s removal of Eichmann was performed without the knowledge or authority of Argentina. Argentina responded with submitting a complaint to the Security Council alleging that Israel has violated the Argentina’s territorial sovereignty rights. After some discussion, the Security Council adopted on June 28, 1960 a resolution condemning Israel’s action. As a result of this resolution Israel and Argentina agreed to settle their differences. On August 8, 1960, they published a joint statement to that effect.

           

            In my paper, I will argue that the removal of Adolf Eichmann was justified under Israeli law. Eichmann left Europe and entered Argentina under a false identity. In addition, he was a world-wide sought criminal. Under Israeli law, the trial of Eichmann was a legal process. In august, 1950, the Knesset adopted the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) law. Section one of that law described that any person who has “done during the period of the Nazi regime, in an enemy country, an act constituting a crime against the Jewish people” or an “act constituting a crime against humanity” or “an act constituting a war crime” is liable to the death penalty. In addition, Argentina violated Israel’s sovereignty first by protecting Eichmann and by granting him exile. I will argue that Eichmann’s exile was not warranted because he entered Argentina with fraud papers and he lived there under a false identity. He was a world-wide sought criminal and Argentina was aware of this fact. Considering the magnitude and brutality of Eichmann’s crimes, his monstrous acts against the Jewish people and his failure to face his crimes and victims, it was not only in Israel’s interest but also Israel’s right to violate Argentina’s sovereignty and to remove Eichmann .     

           

            In the second part of my paper, I will examine to what extend the right of sovereignty of Argentina was violated by Israel. In addition, I will focus on finding counterarguments that state that Israel did not have the right to remove Eichmann without the approval of Argentina. I will use articles that argue that Eichmann’s past as a Nazi does not justify Israel’s actions. Argentina’s decision to grant him exile should have been respected and its territorial sovereignty should not have been violated. I will also use an article that states that law and moral was misused and that moral not law made third parties accept Israel’s actions. I will analyze the arguments and point out why they are false but I also will point out some of their strong aspects. .

             

            In my conclusion, I will state that Argentina violated Israel’s sovereignty first by granting Eichmann exile. Israel’s violation of Argentina’s territorial sovereignty was only a response to Argentina hurting Israel’s sovereignty. Eichmann entered Argentina under a false identity. In addition, Eichmann was a SS leader and he was responsible for the killing of many people. It was not only Israel’s but also the world’s responsibility to remove Eichmann from Argentina and to put him on trial. I will state that Eichmann’s case has changed the view on how war criminals should be treated and that no country should offer protection for such people. I also will state that his trail and his execution were justified.      

           

            Here are some of the articles I will use:

            J. G. Merrills, “Morality and the International Legal Order,” The Modern Law Review 31:5 (1968), pp. 520-534.

            Hans W. Baade, “The Eichmann Trial: Some Legal Aspects,” Duke Law Journal 1961:3 (1961), pp. 400-420.

            David Luban, “Hannah Arendt as a Theorist of International Criminal Law,” International Criminal Law Review 11:3 (2011), pp. 621-641.

            Covey Oliver, “The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann,” The American Journal of International Law 56:3 (1962), pp. 805-845. 

            G.I.A.D. Draper, “The Eichmann Trial: A Judicial Precedent,” International Affairs 38:4 (1962), pp. 485-493

            Yechiam Weitz, “The Holocaust on Trial: The Impact of the Kasztner and Eichmann Trials on Israeli Society,” Israel Studies 2:1 (1996), pp. 1-26.

            Antonius C. G. M. Robben, “How Traumatized Societies Remember: The Aftermath of Argentina's Dirty War,” Cultural Critique 59:3 (2005) pp. 120-164.

            Victor A. Mirelman, “Attitudes towards Jews in Argentina,” Jewish Social Studies 37:4 (19750, pp. 205-220.

            Covey Oliver, “The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann,” The American Journal of International Law 56:3 (1962), pp. 805-825.

            Helen Silving, “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality,” The American Journal of International Law,” 55:2 (1961) pp. 307-358.