This paper refocuses attention on what has been seen as one of the most important limbs of the Nuremberg Charter – the crime against peace, or aggressive war. It looks at the legal and political dimensions that motivated such a characterisation by figures behind the debate, and the various, at times uncertain steps, in bringing forth the designation based on breaches of the Kellogg–Briand Pact within the milieu of other traditional offences. Particular attention is given to the philosophical underpinnings of the crime against peace regarding individual German guilt, notably members of the Nazi leadership, with an examination of influences that proved critical in creating a punishable crime at international law. This paper argues that, despite being of continuing interest to civic groups, such an offence continues to trouble legislators and lawyers, rooted as it is in the focus on war as itself criminal.

本文将注意力集中在《纽伦堡宪章》最重要的方面之一，即危害和平罪或侵略战争。它着眼于法律和政治层面，这些争论是由辩论背后的人物以及有时甚至是不确定的步骤所激发的，以基于其他传统犯罪环境中违反《家乐氏条约》的指称而采取的措施，有时甚至是不确定的步骤。特别关注了针对和平的罪行的哲学基础，涉及德国个人的有罪感，特别是纳粹领导人的罪行，并考察了对证明在国际法上应予惩处的犯罪至关重要的影响。本文认为，尽管公民团体一直对此感兴趣，但这种犯罪仍然困扰着立法者和律师，