Nuremberg Tribunal's Law

The investigation assesses the Nazi regime from 1933 – 1945 in regards to the totality of their actions. In order to evaluate the Nazi regime on whether or not they were more evil than other genocidal regimes, the investigation evaluates how the Nazis controlled their country. The investigation will start in the early years of the Nazi regime in how they set up their totalitarian government and how they expanded their control. Then the Holocaust will be looked at for how the Nazis treated those they were exterminating. Accounts from soldiers and Jewish people who lived through the Nazi control will be mostly used to evaluate if the Nazis were more evil than other genocidal regimes. Two of the sources used in this essay, “The Liberation of Dachau” by Chuck Ferree, and “Fate did not let me go” a letter by Valli Ollendorff are then evaluated for their origins, purposes, values and limitations.

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.

The inconceivable events that unfolded between the years of 1941 and 1945 have left a deep and permanent scar on the world. The systematic murder and attempted genocide that resulted in the death of six million European Jews has unquestionably been the greatest human tragedy to strike modern civilization. This act of savagery and brutality by the notorious National Socialist Party stands as a representation of man’s ability for evil. Crime of this enormity attracts exhaustive debate regarding how such wrongdoing

The election of Adolf Hitler in Germany as Chancellor in 1933 brought many gradual changes to the struggling state, which had been greatly affected by the damages of World War I. These changes, through the use of legislation and government, were directed towards the minorities, especially the Jews. The actions of Hitler caused the death of millions and many other negative side effects to Germany and their people. One major enactment that was directed against the Jews were the Nuremberg Laws, which consequently stripped the Jews of their German citizenship. These helped establish the widespread persecution against the Jewish community, which eventually led to the British getting involved with the transportation of thousands of refugee children. Britain had some history with the immigration of a large amount of children during World War I from Belgium. They once again took up the humanitarian effort with the Kindertransport, which saved the lives of many children from Germany.

In November 1944, Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin published his influential book the Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It was in this book where Lemkin exposed the multiple flaws that existed in international law and requested the recognition of a new crime, which he named ‘genocide’. It is suggested that Lemkin wrote the Axis Rule to use as evidence for anticipated war crime trials that would be carried out once WWII ended, and that he was also conscious of the opportunity the trials would provide for recognising genocide as a crime under international law. Shortly after the book was published, he was able to aid in the prosecution of the perpetrators of this crime in the Nuremberg trials and in doing so, advance the understanding and credibility of the term, which eventually led to its recognition and criminalisation. The purpose of this essay is to explore the role Raphael Lemkin played in the Nuremberg trials, and furthermore, explore the extent to

The conflict between the Allies and the Axis was a horrific and deadly one, which consisted of genocide and mass bombings. Innocent citizens were killed with the estimated sixty million casualties, which lead to the question as to the morality of the different actors—Germany, Japan, England and America— in WWII. In order to truly assess their guilt, meaning their moral innocence, each country will be measured upon the morality of their intent and execution of the different controversial mass killings that Germany (the Holocaust), Japan (Nanking), and the Allied forces (Dresden and Hiroshima) took part in. This hierarchy of evil can be judged upon how Japan’s tyranny and the Allies’ area bombing compare to the genocide performed by Germany. Similarly, these countries will be judged on the whether these different acts were premeditated versus in response to another act, as well as the proportionality to which these acts were carried out. This measurement of evil places each party on an overall scale, which depicts the total guilt that each country or countries deserve. WWII exemplifies that while war is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, there is no such thing as a just war. Similarly, while there is a definite hierarchy of morality between the different actors of WWII, each of the countries at play are immoral in their intent and execution of the attacks on opposing countries.

On the 8th of August 1945, a mere three months after the victory of the Allied forces over Nazi Germany, the four major victorious powers (Great-Britain, the United States of America, the Soviet Union and France) signed the “London Agreement”. This agreement led to the establisment of a International Military Court, which aimed at trying and sentencing German war criminals (1).

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

The principle of equality of arms has become, through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. It implies that no party must be placed in a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. The development of this standard at the international level and the intensification of normative interactions phenomenon have led international and internationalized criminal courts to recognize, in a praetorian and unified way, this principle and import it into their procedure to ensure the legitimacy of their decisions. However, this guiding principle of the trial comes into conflict with another aim assigned to international criminal justice: the effectiveness of the fight against impunity.

The history of international trials is largely limited to the Nuremberg Tribunals and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. However, these limited historical precedents, with an imperfect body of jurisprudence from which to draw, afford one objective: the search for justice. This justice, however, is victim to the political will that drives trials (Goldstone, quoted in “Historical Evolution – From Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court”). Thus, although justice is usually the preeminent focus for a post-conflict society, it is also the most difficult to attain (Hayner, 8). From a different perspective, one may see the most significant limitation of international trials to be their subordination to international political will.

[ 2 ]. Clive Pearson, "HITLER AND THE LAW, 1920-1945", History Review no. 60, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, 2008, 28

The war is over. The country of Germany is in shambles and the dictator Adolf Hitler is dead, but still vividly exists in the nightmares of many. Innocent millions have been slaughtered and the need to seek justice and determine what justice for both implementors of the genocide and for the victims who persevered through the atrocities. Many are quick to suggest killing those involved in the massacre but upon reflection, it only becomes more apparent a better solution is out there. Through the exploration of philosophy, one can discover what can and should be done to serve justice. It is up to learned to look upon themselves and thinkers of the past to tackle the difficult task. The decision must go beyond the brute force of Nazi torture and create a future that is bright for every individual. In search of universal truth, the literary works of Plato’s The Republic, Jesus of Nazareth’s The Gospel of Matthew, and Shakespeare’s Hamlet shall be stripped, searched, and gutted to decipher how justice should truly be served.

Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum are the three stages of Just War Theory. Jus ad Bellum pertains to the ethics of starting a just war, with the principles being having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Jus in Bello covers the conduct of individuals at war, with discrimination and proportionality being the guidelines. Meaning, only use force against legitimate targets in war, and only use an amount of force that is morally appropriate. Jus Post Bellum discusses how justice should be served following the cessation of a war, with discrimination being a big

Even prior to the crimes against humanity that were committed by the Nazis against the Jews, there had already been an alliance formed between them. Regardless of the reasons for the Unites States joining the war, the US did, and they formed alliances with other countries to bring down a growing powerful and radical dictatorship. One can argue that the fact that these nations joined forces is already showing that the interests of the world as a whole and the protection of human rights and progressiveness was more important here than the sovereignty of the German state over its own people. Throughout this essay, I emphasize the alliances and unions among countries that have occurred when violations and crimes against humanity have taken place. Both the alliances and the lack there of, as well as the choices other world leaders have taken to not get involved and more importantly how these choices have impacted the evolution and definition of human rights.

The concept of human rights surfaced by the atrocities made during World War II. After the war, the successful Allies put German officials on trial at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. For the first time, individuals were held directly accountable to the international community for violations of human rights. The concerns mentioned during the trial are correlated to other issues made through history and relevant in present day.