A common criticism is that the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not live up to all of its aims, but it has arguably had some success. It neither ended war, nor stopped the rise of militarism, and was unable to prevent the Second World War. It has been ridiculed for its moralism and legalism and lack of influence on foreign policy. Moreover, it effectively erased the legal distinction between war and peace because the signatories began to wage wars without declaring them. The pact had no mechanism for enforcement, and many historians and political scientists see it as mostly irrelevant and ineffective. However, the pact did serve as the legal basis for the concept of a crime against peace, for which the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal tried and executed the top leaders responsible for starting World War II.