text: law, it was the judge who determined the role played by each of the accused and there was no reason why the position should be different at the international level, The Commission should provide some guidelines, but it would be for the judge, in each specific case, to determine the responsibility of each of the accused. 47. Some members thought that the traditional categories of criminal law, such as complicity, were easier to apply to war crimes than to crimes against - 19 -peace and crimes against humanity. It wau goiatcld out that war ctimsu.were geuerally committed by individuals or groups on their own initiatfwr, without the knowledge or participatian of their superiora. On the other hand, crimes such as aggressdon, intervention or e raised different problems. , for example, involved a government aoJ a whole people, since anyone living in South Africa knew how arrarthefa operated and anyone voting for a political party advocating e supported that system. That wali precisely the weak point of the InternatiOnal Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of&&rthe$&by applying automatically the notion of complicity of traditional criminal law, it unduly widened the circle of offeaders. What was needed was to strike at the leaders and organisers, since it was impossible to prosecute a whole people. 48.Certain other members, however, did not find such a distinction acceptable and thought it would be possible to devise a single article on complicity applicable to s31 the crimes covered by the draft Code. While it was true that the existence of conventions on war crimes containing detailed provisions identifying the various possible offences would facilitate characterisation of the acts and hence of complicity, there was no denying that the Ffague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions, detailed though they wel-a, had sometimes proved to be imprecise.
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a legal framework for international criminal law, specifically the concept of complicity in war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a legal or diplomatic context. The discussion centers around the application of traditional criminal law concepts to international crimes, which implies a connection to international relations, law, and governance.