With Justin Trudeau set to resign as prime minister of Canada, and a federal election on the horizon, now is a crucial moment to reflect on Canada’s post-WWII leadership and its often-overlooked record under the lens of international law. 

Academic Noam Chomsky argued that if the Nuremberg Principles were applied, every post-WWII U.S. president would face indictment. This critique extends to Canada, where almost every post-WWII Canadian prime minister could similarly be held accountable. Despite its reputation as a peacekeeper, Canada’s leaders have engaged in actions aligning with Nuremberg-defined crimes. 

The Nuremberg Principles, developed during the 1945 trials of Nazi leaders, are foundational to international criminal law. Unanimously affirmed by the first UN General Assembly in Resolution 96(I), these principles include: 

• Principle I: Individuals are criminally responsible under international law
• Principle II: Domestic law cannot override international criminal responsibility
• Principle III: Head of state/official status provides no immunity for international crimes
• Principle IV: Following orders is not a defense if moral choice was possible
• Principle V: Accused persons have the right to a fair trial
• Principle VI: Three categories of international crimes are punishable:
  • (a)Crimes against peace (including planning/waging aggressive war)
  • (b) War crimes 
  • (c) Crimes against humanity (genocide)
• Principle VII: Complicity in the “commission of a  crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI”  constitute a crime under international law 

These principles have influenced international law, shaping the 1948 Genocide Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and UNSC-authorized tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, ultimately leading to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. 

Canada’s post-WWII actions — ranging from participation in wars of aggression to crimes against humanity — exposes gaps between its peacekeeping image and its record. 

Application of the Principles

Louis St. Laurent (1948-1957) 

St. Laurent framed Canada’s entry in the Korean War as a “police action….to prevent aggression.” However, St. Laurent provided over 20,000 soldiers to carry out acts of aggression contributing to the death of nearly 20% of North Korea’s population. Under Principle VI(b), Canada’s bombing of civilian populations, destruction of civilian infrastructure, including food sources and dams, constitutes war crimes. St. Laurent’s actions violated the 1948 Genocide Convention as he contributed to conditions intended to destroy part of the population. 

John Diefenbaker (1957-1963) 

Diefenbaker’s government was complicit in the 1961 overthrow and assassination of Congo’s leader Patrice Lumumba, whom Diefenbaker labeled a “threat to Western interests.” This violated Principle VI(a) through destroying Congolese democracy. Canadian troops in a UN mission provided intelligence and logistics, with Colonel Jean Berthiaume aiding Lumumba’s capture. Driven by Cold War priorities, Diefenbaker’s actions destabilized Congo and entrenched Mobutu’s dictatorship, implicating him under Principle VII for complicity in crimes against humanity. 

Lester B. Pearson (1963-1968) 

While many view Pearson as an opponent of the Vietnam War, the evidence demonstrates that his actions actually contributed to its escalation. Far from resisting US aggression, Pearson, through Canada’s role on the International Control Commission, relayed U.S. bombing threats to North Vietnam, thereby facilitating acts of aggression prohibited under Nuremberg Principle VI(a) and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Pearson also permitted U.S. testing of chemical weapon Agent Orange on Canadian soil, later used in Vietnam, violating Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians from cruel treatment. Pearson breached Principles VI(b) by directly causing civilian harm and Principle VII for aiding U.S. war crimes. 

Pierre Trudeau (1968-1979;1980-1984) 

Trudeau’s actions — including opposing UN resolutions on East Timor, providing up to $300 million in economic exports to Indonesia, and offering military support — implicate him under Principle VI(c) for complicity in crimes against humanity following Indonesia’s invasion and occupation of East Timor. This atrocity ranks among the worst in post-WWII history, with one-third of the Timorese population dead. Trudeau’s individual responsibility (Principle I) and lack of immunity (Principle III) are evident. Quebec ammunition manufacturer Valcartier reportedly supplied Indonesia bullets during their invasion in 1975 and the 1981 Operation Fence of Logs, where hundreds were killed. 

Brian Mulroney (1984-1993) 

Mulroney’s actions during the First Gulf War violated multiple Nuremberg Principles. Canada’s involvement in bombing campaigns, with naval vessels, CF-18s, and 4,000 personnel, caused 200,000 civilian deaths and destroyed critical infrastructure, violating the 1949 Geneva and 1948 Genocide Conventions. Mulroney’s government dropped 88,500 tonnes of bombs, crippling Iraq’s electricity and essential services, reducing it from one of the most advanced Arab nations to one of the most devastated. Mulroney’s rejection of diplomacy in favor of military action constitutes a war of aggression under Principle VI(a) and complicity in unlawful civilian targeting (Principle VII), beyond UN mandates. Mulroney argued the intervention was legal as Canada had UN Security Council authorization for the war, however, no UN resolution can legally justify the targeting of civilian necessities.

Jean Chretien (1993-2003)

Chretien violated several Nuremberg Principles during Canada’s involvement in NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia. Chretien argued that it was a humanitarian intervention whereby NATO was forced to act due to the UNSC’s inability to act. However, the NATO bombing worsened humanitarian conditions — pre-NATO bombing, Kosovo had 2,000 casualties, but the NATO intervention forced over 800,000 Kosovars to flee, compared to 200,000 displaced before NATO’s action. Under Principles I and III, Chretien bore responsibility for deploying 18 CF-18 Hornets, conducting 682 sorties, and dropping 530 bombs. This illegal war violated Principle VI(a) on crimes against peace, while 80% of NATO strikes hit civilian infrastructure and used depleted uranium rounds constituting war crimes (Principle VI(b)) and crimes against humanity (Principle VI(c)). 

Furthermore, despite Canada’s stated opposition to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, Chretien provided the United States covert political and military support implicating him under Principle VII for complicity in wars of aggression.  Janice Stein and Eugene Lang (the latter who was chief of staff to Canada’s then minister of defense) in the book, The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, convey Canada’s instrumental support for the invasion of Iraq: “in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada’s indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq — three ships and 100 exchange officers — exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition.” 

Paul Martin (2003-2006) 

In 2004, Martin played a central role in overthrowing Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected leader. Martin’s government argued Canada’s intervention was humanitarian to restore ‘order’ as Haitian rebels wreaked havoc. However, government documents reveal Canada hosted a secret 2003 meeting, The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti, to discuss overthrowing Haiti’s democratic leader. A year later, Canadian troops secured Port-au-Prince airport to facilitate Aristide’s removal. Canada then supported the coup regime by providing troops, equipment, and training the Haitian National Police to brutalize Haitian civilians.  Under the Nuremberg Principles, Martin’s actions constitute crimes against peace (Principle VI(a) and complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity (Principles VI(b) and VI(c)). 

Stephen Harper (2006-2015) 

Harper’s role in Canada’s participation in NATO’s 2011 bombing of Libya violates Principle VI(a) which holds individuals responsible for crimes of aggression leading to widespread destruction. Harper argued the NATO intervention was legally justified by a UNSC resolution. However, UNSC Resolution 1973 authorized a no-fly zone, not dismantling Libya. Canada’s CF-18 jets dropped 696 bombs, resulting in over 5,600 civilian deaths and destroying vital infrastructure, including water facilities, leaving 4 million Libyans without potable water further constituting war crimes under the Geneva Conventions for attacks on civilian populations and non-military targets. 

Justin Trudeau (2015- Present) 

Trudeau is complicit in violating Principles VI(c) and VII by continuing to provide military goods to Israel despite Amnesty International’s conclusion of genocide in Gaza and The Lancet estimating over 180,000 Gazans died since October 2023. Canada’s facilitation of munitions transfers to Israel via the U.S. breaches the UN Arms Trade Treaty and supports allegations of crimes against humanity. Furthermore, Nicaragua is taking Canada to the International Court of Justice over violations of the Genocide Convention stemming from its arms exports to Israel. In March 2024, when this writer interviewed Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae, he categorically denied allegations that Canada’s supply of military goods to Israel had contributed to human rights abuses against Palestinians. 

Trudeau also violated the Nuremberg Principles by continuing arms exports to Saudi Arabia, despite evidence these weapons were used in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, constituting one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. This contravenes Principle VII, which criminalizes complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, and breaches Canada’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty. 

The Poisoned Chalice

The humanitarian defense of Canada’s post-WWII actions fails under direct application of the Nuremberg Principles. Principle VI explicitly defines crimes against peace and war crimes without exceptions for claimed humanitarian motives. Prosecutor Robert Jackson warned at Nuremberg that the Nazi defendants were being handed a “poisoned chalice” and if the tribunal drank from it, it must face the same consequences. As evidenced by their crimes, Canada’s post-WWII leaders have sipped from the poisoned chalice — having committed the supreme crime of aggression — so why haven’t they faced consequences? 

Pitasanna Shanmugathas is a second-year law student at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law. Though he is a member of JURIST’s staff, he writes this argument in his personal capacity.