UNITED V.

FLICK (1947)14 AD 266

Hrishika
ADR CASE
 FACT OF THE CASE
The defendants in this case were Friedrich Flick and five other high-ranking
directors of Flick's group of companies, the defendant the main accuse in the
matter was the principal proprietor and head of the group of industrial
enterprises and was member of the supervisory board of other large projects and
companies and during World War II he became leader of military economy by
controlling different companies in coal and other industries and caused many
illegal activities, All of the defendants were charged with committing war
crimes and crimes against humanity through the use of slave labour, the
deportation of civilians from German-occupied territories, and the use of
prisoners of war for war operations, All of the defendants, except Terberger,
were charged with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity by
participating in the plundering of public and private property, spoliation and
property offences under German occupation, Flick, Steinbrinck, and Kaletsch
have been charged with committing crimes against humanity through their
participation in the persecution of people on the grounds of race, religion, or
politics, specifically their participation of the "Aryanization" of Jewish
properties.”
Flick and Steinbrinck were charged with war crimes and crimes against
humanity by participating in the murders, tortures and atrocities committed
by the Nazi Party, and specifically the SS. United States Military Tribunal
took the matter into consideration, the tribunal found that between
September 1939 and May 1945, all six accused, in different capacities,
committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Article II
of Control Council Law No. 10. The acts and conduct of the accused have
been alleged to have been set out in that count. They have been committed
unlawfully, willfully and knowingly and in violation of the law. International
conventions, in particular Articles of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and
Articles of the War Prisoners Convention (Geneva, 1929) on the laws and
customs of war, The general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all parties
 ISSUES
“Whether the accused persons are guilty of war crimes”
“Whether the decision of the tribunal stands correct”
“Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to the matter.”
Contention of the parties:- United State ( Petitioner):- “
1. That the German slave-labour programme had its origin in Reich
Governmental circles, and that for a considerable period of time prior to the
use of slave labour and the accused were engaged in slavery activities.”
2. “That the labourers employed in the accuser’s plants were exploited by the
accused under inhumane conditions with respect to their personal liberty,
shelter, food, pay, hours of work and health.”
3. “That the prisoners were kept in the and those prisoners were prisoners of
war engaged in war work.”
Defendants
4. It was argued that the defendants had no other choice but to take part in
criminal state programmes such as forced labour and spoliation of foreign
countries' economies”
5. that the leading officials of the Flick empire had no influence on the concrete
working conditions of the forced workers and emphasised the alleged
decentralised structure of the Flick Concern.”
6. that maltreatment of forced workers was not part of the company's
organisation but instead the result of excesses by low ranking officials”
 Relevant case law/Precedent used; Ex Parte Quirin - Supreme Court of the United
States
“The CJ, Stone held, from the very beginning of its history this Court has applied the
law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribed for the conduct
of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as enemy individuals.
Control Council Law No. 10, Article 2.g
FINAL DECISION/JUDGEMENT
“The defendants were indicted and the trial began on 19 April. After nine months, on
22 December, the Tribunal handed down its judgment, acquitted Burkart, Kaletsch and
Terberger. Only Flick and Weiss were found guilty on the first count, only Flick guilty
on count two, both Flick and Steinbrinck guilty on the fourth count, and Steinbrinck
guilty on count five. The Tribunal dismissed the third count on the ground that it
declared the evidence submitted to the Tribunal beyond its jurisdiction. On the same
day the Tribunal handed down its sentences to the three guilty parties, sentenced Flick
to seven years in prison, Steinbrinck to five years, and Weiss to two and a half years in
prison .
 conclusion

The Tribunals' analysis of industrial business transactions in occupied Europe

followed a similar rationale. Here, the presumption of a functioning private
sphere led them to stress the importance of state coercion in relation to certain
unlawful transactions. The prerogative, and thus unlawful, behaviour of the
State was identified as having an unlawful influence on the private sphere rather
than the absence of a rule of law in the occupied territories. But it is the reality
of the camps that provides, perhaps, the most acute example of the insistence of
the Tribunals on the presence and linkage of public power as a basis for
responsibility in international law. Division of labour between the
governments.”
“The involment of the private companies and the person has always been a
issue in the case of war crimes against the human being where such enterprises
have always found with the violations of international laws and responsible for
aggressive or excessive use of military causing huge violation of human rights
across and still a untouched matter under the IHL
 Observation
“Corporations were deeply involved in the commission of international crimes
in World War II and they thrived economically from their conduct. For one,
German and Japanese corporations exploited captive populations as slave and
forced labor in the face of acute labor shortages and crushing production
quotas.”
“The enslavement of millions of foreign workers from occupied territory by
Axis corporations has violated international humanitarian law ("IHL"), as the
law of armed conflict is now known. IHL demands humane treatment from the
occupants and urges them to force the inhabitants to participate in military
operations.”
“Therefore, the present case is the nut shell case or clear case of war crimes
against the humanity the decision of the tribunal stands very correct in the
present case.”
“The jurisdiction of the tribunal also stands correct as under the control
council law 10 the tribunal has validly reasoned that it has all the powers to
take the matter.