Quick Facts
In full:
William Ramsey Clark
Born:
December 18, 1927, Dallas, Texas
Died:
April 9, 2021, New York, New York (aged 93)
Title / Office:
attorney general (1967-1969), United States
Notable Family Members:
father Tom C. Clark

Ramsey Clark (born December 18, 1927, Dallas, Texas—died April 9, 2021, New York, New York) was a human rights lawyer and former U.S. attorney general under President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Clark—the son of Tom C. Clark, who served as attorney general under President Harry Truman and later as an associate Supreme Court Justice—followed his father into law and graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1950. He worked briefly in a private practice and then made his way in 1961 to the U.S. Department of Justice during the early days of the Kennedy administration. He soon emerged as one of the Justice Department’s more radical lawyers, often at odds with prevailing opinions on civil rights law enforcement. Employed as assistant attorney general in the lands division from 1961 to 1965, he was one of the few senior department figures to advocate a more active role for the Justice Department in protecting civil rights activists.

With the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the Justice Department under President Lyndon Johnson became much more active in the field of civil rights. Yet, the Justice Department found itself struggling to understand and deal with the civil unrest triggered by the Vietnam War and the perceived slow pace and limited scope of social change. Clark was thrust further into that environment as he became deputy attorney general in 1965, acting attorney general in October 1966, and finally attorney general in March 1967.

Clark won both acclaim and condemnation for his work as attorney general. His delicate balancing act in weighing the interests of the state against individual rights to privacy and protest was not always well received. Indeed, Richard Nixon made him a central issue during the 1968 presidential campaign and promised a new attorney general if he were elected. To address civil unrest, Clark implemented the Community Relations Service and the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance (later replaced by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration) programs, which emphasized riot prevention and effective police-community relations. He also defended the right to privacy by denying wiretaps requested under a dubious catchall provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. At the same time, he prosecuted a huge number of draft-evasion cases—more than 1,500 in 1968 alone, the most notable of which was the prosecution of Benjamin Spock for conspiracy to encourage draft evasion.

Unfortunately for Clark, his balancing act came crashing down when he created the Interdivisional Information Unit in 1968 to collate, store, and disseminate data on the composition and motivations of “dissident groups.” Those data were provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to prevent civil unrest, but he failed to provide the FBI a framework within which it should operate. That allowed the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) to target groups like the Black Panthers and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and led to gross violations of civil liberties.

Upon leaving office as Nixon became president, Clark embraced his activist tendencies with a passion. In his legal work, he took on clients like Vietnam War protester Father Daniel Berrigan, and he proceeded to lay out his views on criminal justice in his first book, Crime in America: Observations on Its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Control (1970). For Clark, crime emerged from the dehumanizing effects of poverty, racism, ignorance, and violence. He argued that America needed to address those problems through education and rehabilitation rather than resorting to prisons, which he saw as criminal hothouses that only exacerbated the problem.

In addition to championing a more holistic approach to criminal justice, Clark sought to address specific issues. In 1973 he and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Roy Wilkins launched an excoriating attack on the Chicago Police Department and the state’s attorney for their roles in the 1969 shooting deaths of Black Panthers Mark Clark and Fred Hampton. Clark claimed that that kind of violence occurs when such little value is placed on others that perpetrators see no wrong in seeking to control or destroy them. That charge would be the leitmotif of his subsequent political activism as his emphasis shifted from U.S. government actions at home to actions abroad.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Since the 1970s Clark opposed U.S. military interventions wherever they occurred—Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, the Balkans, and Iraq again—largely through his International Action Center. In 1992 he wrote The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf, in which he accused the United States of war crimes, condemned the United Nations for its sanctions against Iraq, and criticized the American media for failing to inform the public. He was also a leading figure in the campaign to impeach President George W. Bush over the Iraq War. In 2013 he led an American antiwar delegation to Syria to protest potential U.S. military action against the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

While such activities have been seen as anti-American, it was his choice of legal clients that made Clark controversial. He represented Serbian President Slobodan Milošević, Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana—accused of leading Hutu killing squads against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Clark contended that his clients could not receive justice at the hands of their accusers, though he was widely accused of employing some dubious moral and legal logic in making those claims—such as in his condemnation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for dispensing “colonial” justice.

Dean Williams

international criminal law, body of laws, norms, and rules governing international crimes and their repression, as well as rules addressing conflict and cooperation between national criminal-law systems. See also international law; conflict of laws.

What do you think?

Explore the ProCon debate

Criminal law prohibits and punishes behaviour judged to be antisocial. Because each country’s laws are a reflection of its values, there are often large differences between the national laws of different countries, both with respect to the nature of the crimes themselves and the penalties considered appropriate. The term international criminal law refers variously to at least three distinct areas: cooperation between different national legal systems through extradition and other forms of mutual legal assistance; the prohibition and punishment of certain behaviour by several countries acting collectively or by the international community as a whole; and the operation of autonomous international legal systems, including courts and other mechanisms of enforcement, that exist alongside national criminal law.

Mutual legal assistance

To facilitate the enforcement of their domestic criminal laws, national governments cooperate with each other in the transfer of offenders from one jurisdiction to another and in a number of other ways relating to the investigation of crimes and the gathering and production of evidence. Extradition is governed essentially by a complex web of bilateral treaties by which states agree to the rendition of fugitives from other jurisdictions so that they can stand trial in the country where the crime took place or, in exceptional cases, where there are other jurisdictional links, such as the nationality of the offender or of the victim.

Although bilateral extradition treaties vary somewhat, there is a body of generally applicable rules. States usually agree upon a list of serious crimes for which extradition may be authorized and upon a requirement that such crimes be recognized as criminal in both the sending and the requesting state. Extradition is permitted for a specific crime described in an extradition request. Under the rule of specialty, a requesting state may try a suspect only for the crimes for which the suspect was extradited, unless this protection is waived by the sending state. Extradition may be refused in cases where the crime is deemed to be a political offense, though there is greater willingness to grant extradition on this basis when politically motivated crimes involve violence directed against innocent targets. Political crimes involving expression and opinion are often prosecuted as sedition or treason. Beginning in the late 20th century, governments increasingly refused to extradite persons accused of capital crimes unless assured that capital punishment would not be imposed should the fugitive be convicted.

Categories of international crime

Certain crimes are international by their nature. They may be carried out in more than one country, in which case they are considered transborder crimes, or they may be committed in international zones such as the high seas or international airspace. Efforts to repress such crimes become internationalized out of necessity, reflecting the practicalities of preventing acts that sometimes easily elude national jurisdictions. Crimes such as trafficking in persons, participating in the slave trade, and committing various terrorist offenses, such as piracy and airplane hijacking, are governed by both international treaties and customary legal obligations.

Crimes committed by national governments—or rather by the individuals who control and direct them—are at the core of international criminal law. The victims of such crimes are sometimes the nationals of other states (e.g., civilians in an occupied territory during an armed conflict), but more often they are the criminal state’s own citizens. In this context, international criminal law overlaps considerably with human rights law, the former attributing blame to individuals mainly in order to impose punishment, the latter blaming the state and seeking some form of redress or compensation.

The first modern international criminal tribunal was held at Nürnberg, Germany, following World War II to try military and civilian leaders of Nazi Germany. (A similar tribunal was established at Tokyo to try alleged Japanese war criminals.) The Nürnberg trials (1945–46) prosecuted three categories of offenses: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The definitions of the crimes were narrowly crafted and applied only to acts committed in association with international war. More than half a century later, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC; 1998) targeted the same three kinds of crime and added the crime of genocide. During the second half of the 20th century, the definitions of the crimes that were prosecuted at Nürnberg evolved considerably, so that they came to cover offenses committed in peacetime or in civil wars.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Crimes against peace consist of acts of aggressive war. Although aggression was defined in a United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolution (1974) as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” the question of how to assign individual responsibility for acts of aggression committed by states remains unresolved. Although the ICC has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, it cannot exercise its authority until there is agreement both on a definition of aggression suitable for individual criminal prosecutions and on the role that the UN Security Council should play in determining when aggression has taken place. Such an agreement has proved elusive, however. There have been no prosecutions for crimes against peace or for aggression since the post-World War II trials. Virtually no national jurisdictions have introduced this category of crime into domestic legal codes, in contrast to the widespread acceptance of national laws against genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Moreover, the two ad hoc criminal tribunals established by the UN Security Council for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were given jurisdiction to punish genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes but not aggression.

The concept of war crimes refers to a range of acts judged to be beyond civilized human behaviour, even in the extreme conditions of warfare. The acts defined as war crimes concern both the methods and the materials of warfare (e.g., the use of certain weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or the targeting of noncombatants). At Nürnberg the defendants argued that, whereas states might have culpability for violations of the laws and customs of war, individuals could not be singled out for criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the judges held that “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” Although individuals can be held responsible for most kinds of international crimes, such crimes are almost never committed without the involvement of states or of rebel organizations striving to take power. At the beginning of the 21st century, the question of whether states themselves can commit international crimes remained a controversial issue.

In 1949 a narrow list of war crimes committed during international armed conflict, known as grave breaches, was approved in four Geneva Conventions. When the Geneva Conventions were revised with additional protocols in 1977, attempts to expand the concept of grave breaches to include acts committed in non-international, or civil, war did not succeed. States have always been more willing to accept a role for international norms and standards during international, or interstate, wars than during civil wars. Nevertheless, by the mid-1990s international views had evolved, partly because of the influence of the international human rights movement and partly because of outrage at the scale of the atrocities committed in the early 1990s in the essentially civil conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. As evidence of this development in international law, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognized a broad range of war crimes committed during internal armed conflict.

Although those who prepared the post-World War II prosecutions initially believed that atrocities committed against civilians within Germany fell outside the scope of international law, the Nürnberg tribunal was empowered to prosecute such acts under the rubric of crimes against humanity—a concept that previously had not existed in international law. At about the same time, the closely related concept of genocide was developed to describe acts aimed at the physical destruction, in whole or in part, of ethnic, racial, national, or religious groups. The crime of genocide was defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). Although crimes against humanity were prosecuted at Nürnberg, a widely accepted definition of this term eluded international law until the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998. Crimes against humanity consist of a variety of acts, such as murder, torture, enforced disappearance, apartheid, and rape, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population.

In a general sense, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide all consist of acts, such as murder and rape, that are criminal under national law. What sets them apart as international crimes is the context in which the act is committed, be it an international or internal armed conflict (war crime), an attack on a civilian population (crime against humanity), or the intentional destruction of an ethnic, racial, national, or religious group (genocide). For a prosecution to succeed, it must be established both that the underlying criminal act occurred (e.g., the killing of individuals) and that one of these contextual elements was present.