Autonomy versus Responsibility: A critique of Nuremberg Essay

On September 15 1935, Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws, most Germans if not all already agreed with everything Hitler has been saying. The Nuremberg Laws gave these Germans an excuse to do hurtful things towards Jews and not be looked down on. Some might've even been praised.

The Eichmann trial reveals a lot about the strengths and limitations of the “the trial” to achieve justice in such cases. The reason of a trial is to render justice; even the ethical of underlying motives, as mentioned in the novel, “the making of a record of the Hitler regime which the withstand the test of history… Nuremburg Trials, can only detract the laws main business: to weigh the charges brought against the accused, to render judgement, and to mete out due punishment” (253). The judgement in the Eichmann case, whose first two sections had been written in respond to the better cause idea as it was changed into expanded both inside and outside the out room, could not have been clearer in this respect. As proven in the novel, it states

At the time of the Nuremberg trials, “crimes against humanity” were new international crimes. The laws criminalized such acts as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any

Justice Robert Jackson was faced with a number of difficulties when he was tasked with the job as the US justice at Nuremberg. He faced the daunting task of trying to bring justice to over a decade’s worth of crimes and wars, which spanned and entire continent, in one tribunal. Before the proceedings began he knew many of the challenges he would have to overcome and that he would have a difficult road ahead of him. He had to create a workable procedure for the trail as well as define the laws, rules, and procedures that would be used when conducting the Nuremberg trials.

“Constitutional Law of the Greater German Reich” is a primary document dating back to 1939. The source was authored by Ernst Rudolf Huber, a legal scholar well-known for his role in shaping Nazi law. The purpose of this document was to convey to the citizens of Germany, that the power of the Fuhrer state has the capability to extend across all bounds as it acts only in accordance to the people. Therefore, separating it from a parliamentary democracy, which merely advertises the will of the people while only focusing on conflicting social interests. The source holds value as it indicates Huber’s role in the Nazi regime. Through demonstrating how he uses his prior knowledge of administrative law to draw positive attention towards the principles

The Nuremburg Trials were trials held by allied forces to accuse a system of government for war crimes after World War II. These crimes dealt with invading nations, violating the Treaty of Versailles, and primarily “crimes against humanity.” They were later known as the Holocaust, where many victims were deported, enslaved, and executed. The victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jewish, Polish, Gypsies, and handicapped elderly who were considered dangerous. The International Military Tribunal, called the prosecutors consisted of lawyers and judges from the United States, France, and Soviet Union. The purpose of the trial was to decide how to prosecute the judges that did not do their job of serving justice to a multitude of innocent individuals

Helmuth Hübener went into a biased courtroom, and his friend even recalls, “I had a feeling the minute I entered the courtroom that we were already sentenced. It was just a show they were putting on-just a big show. ”(Hübener vs. Hitler, pg. 189.)

Aside from these problems that were faced during the trial, the judges resorted to doctrines of domestic criminal law to decide the novel category of crimes against humanity that were committed over an extended period of time, in different places, and by numerous actors. The Israeli court developed a unique interpretation of the final solution as a crime that implicated different agents in its various stages of implementation and was able in this way to attribute responsibility to Eichmann as a principle

This paper seeks to canvass the legacy of the Nuremberg Trial; the legal justifications and procedural innovations that were once controversial and which through the turn of the century have now come to be regarded as a milestone towards the application of principles of international law, establishment of a permanent international criminal court enshrined under the Rome Statute and setting new precedents for the international community. Furthermore, the author seeks to juxtapose the legal and political justifications given for the

The idea that stands behind establishing the Nuremberg trials was to punish the losers of a war for perceived injustices and realized atrocities committed during a time of war. In the process of bringing those doers of harm to a swift justice by murdering them, we opened the gates to a new aspect of international engagement. The Nuremberg trials fragmented the glass casing of sovereignty around nation states by focusing justice on individual contributions. The traumas we experienced from both world wars inclined us to focus our attention to individual safety and autonomy. Nuremberg established that no matter how much a state argues about sovereignty, the world’s high moral keepers (or the most powerful nation states aka the P5+1) will bypass

Hart, a legal positivist, believes that “law is law,” and argued against Radbrunch’s theory in servings as a solution to fix Germany’s judicial system. He argued against his theory and wanted a separation of law and morality because he thought that it would only “cloak the true nature of the problems,” and encourage a “romantic optimism,” rather than addressing the dilemma that the courts had in deciding on convicting Nazi criminals. Though Hart acknowledges that this case poses a difficult situation for the law, he does propose his own solution to the problem. With his positivist approach to the law, saying that the laws are the rules expected of us, and enforced at a particular time, he proposes that the “grudge informer” should be punished through a different and ‘new’ set of laws. These laws he deems “retrospective laws,” would entail punishing acts such as revenge and duplicity. However, this dilemma between choosing if the “grudge informer” was innocent

From the research I have done Keitel is portrayed as a disgraced desk soldier whose only defence in the trial was that he was obeying orders. I still do not agree with Wilhelm’s argument because he had a choice not to follow through with Hitler’s wishes but instead signed orders for various ruthless killings and attacks. Keitel knew his actions were really obscene but he chose to go through with them to please Hitler. The judge’s final verdict for Wilhelm Keitel was that he is guilty on all four accounts and sentenced to death by hanging. Keitel signed orders for the attacks on the neutral countries of Belgium and the Netherlands. He also ordered the attacks on soldiers in the East that should be met by putting to death fifty to one hundred Communists for one German soldier’s death. The judges made the appropriate sentencing for Keitel as he deserved to die for his inhumane war orders. Superior orders, even to a soldier, cannot lessen the crime when the evil doings are committed deliberately and ruthlessly. These kinds of orders Keitel singed off on were just so vicious and cold blooded. Any normal human being in their right mind would not allow for these actions to happen. Finally, Hans Frank was the third accused Nazi who used the defence that he was just following orders. Frank was appointed Chief Civil Administration Officer for occupied Polish territory during the war. Hans Frank stated during the trial, “I did not approve of the persecutions of

. "The Triumph of Hitler: The Nuremberg Laws." The History Place. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan 2013.

The Nuremberg Trials were a critical point in the history of international law because it established the fact that humanity has the need of an international shield to shelter and protect. This event was responsible for contributing in the ongoing process of developing rules that are binding between states and nations also known as international laws. The judgment of the trials may be one of the most important events in the history of international law due to the fact that it assisted in establishing laws against war crimes. One of the biggest questions raised was whether causing a war was an international crime that would be punishable or not. Many believed there was no

As can be seen, The Nuremberg Trials had many impacts on the world and also the future. They had bought Nazi’s to justice and the trials had saved many lives. The Nuremberg Trials impact had launched World War II but in this process, they had eliminated many Nazi’s. The trials had lasted 218 days in all. Some of the prison sentences they had were turned into death sentences while some death sentences were turned into a death