Final Essay 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

answer to question 1 on final ...

Description

Essay 1: Nuremberg Trials (Legitimate or not/victor’s justice/Jackson’s argument) The Nuremberg Trials were multiple military tribunals held by the Allied forces after the end of WWII. These trials set out to prosecute prominent members of the leadership, whether political, military, judicial or otherwise, of Nazi Germany as they carried out the Holocaust or other war crimes. Moreover, the Nuremberg Trials played a much larger role as the events of this tribunal sparked a turning point to move forward from classical international law to more modern/contemporary international law. In doing so, the classification of crimes and the constitution of the court created a precedent that would be used later by organizations such as the UN to develop certain international laws dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity, war of aggression, and the existence of an International Criminal Court. As monumental as the Trials were globally, there was much ado about the legitimacy of the trials. Considering the Soviet Union’s involvement with Nazi Germany in the acquisition of Poland early on in the war, yet no Soviets were persecuted during the trials—many viewed the trials as a form of victor’s justice. In this manner, many criticized the Nuremberg trials as being illegitimate. Although Robert Jackson asserts the necessity of the trials for holding leaders responsible for the crime of aggressive war-marking and in turn sets up the foundation of international law as we know it, the Trials are deemed illegitimate as the charges against the defendants were only considered ‘crimes’ after the fact and therefore the trials are overall invalid as a modification of victor’s justice. The International Military Tribunal (IMT) opened in November 1945 in Nuremberg, as was presided over by a Soviet judge. The prosecution had entered indictments against 24 prominent war criminals and various organizations, like the leadership of the Nazi Party. These individuals and organizations are criminal if found guilty of the following indictments: participation in a crime against peace, planning/waging wars of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The tribunal is credited for establishing the ideal that crimes against international law are committed by individual men, and not abstract entities. It stresses that only through punishing these individuals can the provisions of international law actually be upheld. The Nuremberg trials were a necessity, as Jackson asserts in his opening statement, and led to a delveopment of international criminal law. The conclusion of the trials actually served as models for various global issues/events like: The Genocide Convention (1948), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War (1949), etc. Jackson argues in his opening statement, that although the trials certainly have the potential to be about vengeance and practically legally illegitmate—he refutes the concern for victor’s justice as all the work would be transparent. This means, that the Tribunal would be open to public scrunity and the press, thus allowing an assessment in history. In addition, Jackson acknowledges the reality that the trials are a series of prosecutions brought forward by war-winners against the defeated enemy, but the necessity of establishing contemporary international far outweighs the any so-called “victor’s justice”. To an extent, Jackson was correct. The influence of the tribunal is visible in the proposals for a permanent international criminal court, the creation of international criminal codes, as well as the International Law Commission which followed after. On the same note, the Nuremberg trials allowed for a more stable and permanent establishment of an international criminal court. This ultimately would

lead to the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Jackson understands the reality of the trials and its conflict of interest, but yet emphasizes the necessity of them in setting forth a better international system of law. For example, there were many conflicting court methods between the German Court System and the U.S. court system like the crime of conspiriacy. Common law countries were familiar with this charge and found it just to try in court, whereas this crime was unheard of in civil law systems and therefore the German defense found it unfair to be charged with such. The IMT bridged this gap and became the first successful international criminal court. Although necessary, the Nuremberg Trials did not uphold an overall valid application of law and therefore can be deemed illegitimate. Many critics argue that the charges against the defendants were only considered crimes after they were committed and in doing so, a form of victor’s justice. This is glaringly prevalent from the selective indictment of German defendants for conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland (1939) but no one from the Soviet Union was prosecuted—even though they had a hand in it as well. Following the conclusion of the IMT, scholars and critics of the Nuremberg Trials saw the underpinnings of the proceedings as a significant stray from positivistic assumptions that influenced the thought of international jurists. These jurists found themselves stumped when considering how the Nuremberg Trials can be found valid when noting that Germany never consented to the Tribunal, or how the principles enunciated by the Nuremberg Tribunal could be of legal value until most of the states have agreed to a tribunal to enforce aforementioned principles. The validity of the court during the trials has been questioned on a number of counts. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court actually called the Nuremberg Trials a fraud. He accused Jackson of leading a “high grade lynching party”. Many people did not mind what happens to the Nazis, actually many agreed that the punishment for war crimes is necessary, but did not align themselves with the way Jackson had the court running/ the application of common law. The trials are met with such criticism because they neglected to apply justice as people commonly understand it. The defendants at Nuremberg were ultimately held responsible, condemned and punished—and while this seems just it is important to evaluate the justice in doing so. Justice cannot be served when the guilty parties are dealt with in any such manner, but rather when the guilty are punished in a way that carefully considers their crimes according to provisions of VALID law. At the top of the reasons why the Nuremberg Trials were illegitimate is the fact that the defendants were not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of the judges. Since the judges were picked by the winners of the war, the Tribunal itself was not impartial and should not have been regarded as a court in a true sense of the term. However, that’s not the only reason. Of the many charges brought to the court, one particularly problematic one was the conspiracy to commit aggression. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact detailed the partition of Poland among the Germans and Soviets, yet the only the Germans were tried despite Soviet involvement. Additionally, in 1915, the Allied Powers (Britain, France, Russia) had issued a statement explicitly charging another government of commiting a crime against humanity for the first time. But, it was not until the London Charter that this crime had a specific meaning to it. It is important to note that the London Charter definition of what constituted a crime against humanity was unbeknownst when the crimes were actually committed. Therefore, it can be argued to be a retroactive law, in direct violation of the

prohibition of ex post facto laws. On top of this, the Soviet Union initiated an ‘exclusion request’ from attending the trials as war criminals. This is a clandestine effort to hide their crimes against war civilians, or rather war crimes that they committed their army, by dividing Poland up. This request was later approved by the court. Overall, the Nuremberg Trials are leaden with hypocrisy. Britain and France supported the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations during its attack on Finland in 1939, yet six years later they were all working together as respected equals at Nuremberg. The Allied Powers are not angels in this either, many critics agree that Allied Powers committed egregious war crimes as well. Among the crimes against humanity is the offense of the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. It was the United States that had dropped the atom bomb on hundreds of thousands of people and decimated populations beyond repair. Not only this, but crimes against humanity also outline the offense of a mass expulsion of a population. So can the Anglo Saxon leadership at Potsdam who condoned the expulsion of populations of countless Germans from their homes be excluded from this as well? Clearly, the nations in judgement had deemed themselves exempt from the law that they themselves enacted. All in all, the Nuremberg Trials, while necessary in establishing a permanent form an forum of international law, were invalid/illegitimate application of law and a form of victor’s justice....