T HERE appear to be both similarities and differences between the conditions surrounding the punishment of war criminals and those surrounding the punishment of domestic criminals. Most criminologists agree that punishment has a limited place in any program of crime prevention, but that its use has been generally ineffective. Sutherland's classical treatment' of this subject is probably generally acceptable to most. It must be admitted, however, that the effects of punishment on the apprehended criminal are better known than its effects upon the potential criminal. We are also agreed that the sole purpose of punishment is the prevention of crime, delinquency and exploitative behavior generally. It will be the thesis of this brief and all-too-dogmatic paper (i) that the principles of domestic criminology apply generally to the field of international behavior. (2) That where they do not apply, because of differences in the surrouding conditions, those differences argue for even less effectiveness of punishment in the international than in the domestic field. There are two major general types of war crimes: aggressive attacks and atrocities. The test of the effectiveness of the punishment of war criminals is seen, then, in its effect upon the prevention of World War III, IV, or V, or possibly upon the degree to which men fight cleanly or atrociously in those wars. There is a good reason, however, for confining attention to the prevention of the crime aggression rather than the crime of atrocity. The next world war will be fought either with atomic bombs or some