NUREMBERG TRIALS

The Nuremberg trials were a series of trials held between 1945 and 1949 in which the Allies prosecuted
German military leaders, political officials, industrialists, and financiers for crimes they had committed
during world war II.

The first trial took place in Nuremberg, Germany, and involved twenty-four top-ranking survivors of the
National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party). The subsequent trials were held throughout
Germany and involved approximately two hundred additional defendants, including Nazi physicians who
performed vile experiments on human subjects, concentration camp commandants who ordered the
extermination of their prisoners, and judges who upheld Nazi practices.

World War II began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Over the next few years, the European Axis
powers (Germany, Italy, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania) successfully invaded and occupied
France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, and the
Netherlands. But when adolf hitler's troops invaded the Soviet Union, the Nazi war machine stalled. By
the end of the war, the Axis powers were battered and beleaguered, and in 1945 they unconditionally
surrendered to the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France (the four Allied powers).

The Allies had been discussing the idea of punishing war criminals since 1943 when U.S. president
franklin d. roosevelt, British prime minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet premier joseph stalin signed
the Moscow Declaration promising to hold the Axis powers, particularly Germany, Italy, and Japan,
responsible for any atrocities they committed during World War II. In 1944 Roosevelt and Churchill
briefly entertained the idea of summarily executing the highest-ranking members of the Third Reich
without a trial or legal proceeding of any kind.

However, by June of 1945, when delegations from the four Allied powers gathered in London at the
International Conference of Military Trials, the U.S. representatives firmly believed that the Nazi leaders
could not be executed without first being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in a judicial
proceeding. Principles of justice, fairness, and due process, delegates from the United States argued,
required no less. U.S. leaders also feared that the Allies would be perceived as hypocritical for denying
the vanquished powers the same basic legal rights that were denied to those persons summarily
executed by Germany, Italy, and Japan during the war.

On August 8, 1945, the four Allied powers signed a convention called the Agreement for the Prosecution
and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis Powers, which set forth the
parameters by which the accused would be tried. Under this convention, which is sometimes referred to
as the London Agreement or Nuremberg Charter, the Allies would conduct the trials of leaders of the
European Axis powers in Nuremberg, and would subsequently prosecute lower-ranking officials and less
important figures in the four occupied zones of Germany. American military tribunals in the South
Pacific, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, tried accused Japanese war criminals.

The London Agreement also established the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which was a panel of
eight judges, two named by each of the four Allied powers. One judge from each country actively
presided at trial, and the other four sat on the panel as alternates. The four Allied powers also selected
the prosecutors, who agreed to pursue a conviction against the defendants on behalf of the newly
formed united nations.

Under the Nuremberg Charter, each defendant accused of a war crime was afforded the right to be
represented by an attorney of his choice. The accused war criminals were presumed innocent by the
tribunal and could not be convicted until their guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition,
the defendants were guaranteed the right to challenge incriminating evidence, cross-examine adverse
witnesses, and introduce exculpatory evidence of their own.

The IMT was given authority to hear four counts of criminal complaints: conspiracy, crimes against
peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Count I encompassed conspiracies to commit crimes
against peace, whereas count II covered persons who committed such crimes in their individual
capacities. Crimes against peace included the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of aggressive
war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Crimes against peace differed from
other war crimes, the tribunal said, in that they represented the "accumulated evil" of the Axis powers.

Count III consisted of war crimes committed in violation of the laws and customs of war as accepted and
practiced around the world. This count aimed to punish those individuals who were responsible for
issuing or executing orders that resulted in the plundering of public and private property, the wanton
destruction of European cities and villages, the murder of captured Allied soldiers, and the conscription
of civilians in occupied territories for deportation to German labor camps.

Count IV consisted of crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, enslavement, and other
inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, as well as every form of political, racial, and
religious persecution carried out in furtherance of a crime punishable by the IMT. This count aimed to
punish the most notorious crimes committed by the Nazi regime, such as genocide and torture. Early in
the trial, however, the IMT ruled that the court did not have authority to try the defendants for crimes
they committed before 1939 when World War II began.

The trial began on November 20, 1945, and concluded on October 1, 1946. Thirty-three witnesses
testified for the prosecution. Eighty witnesses testified for the defense, including nineteen of the
defendants. An additional 140 witnesses provided evidence for the defense through written
interrogatories. The prosecution introduced written evidence of its own, including original military,
diplomatic, and government files of the Nazi regime that fell into the hands of the Allies after the
collapse of the Third Reich

Robert h. jackson, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, led the prosecution team. President
harry s. truman had asked Jackson to assemble a staff of U.S. attorneys to investigate alleged war crimes
and present evidence against the defendants. Jackson was joined on the prosecution team by Roman
Rudenko, François de Menthon, and Sir Hartley Shawcross, the chief prosecutors for Russia, France, and
Great Britain, respectively. Each of the four powers employed a number of assistant prosecutors as well.
The Constitution of the International Military Tribunal, which established its rules of procedure, makes
no reference as to how Jackson must limit the scope of his argumentation in opening statement.
Furthermore, under Article 19 of the Constitution, the tribunal was not bound by any rules in the
admissibility of evidence. Instead, the court would admit any evidence it deemed to have probative
value.

Jackson commenced the trial with an opening statement that is considered one of the most eloquent in
the annals of jurisprudence. "The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish", Jackson said, "have
been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored
because it cannot survive their being repeated…. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung
with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to judgment of the
law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.

The Nuremberg trials made three important contributions to international law. First, they established a
precedent that all persons, regardless of their station or occupation in life, can be held individually
accountable for their behavior during times of war. Defendants cannot insulate themselves from
personal responsibility by blaming the country, government, or military branch for which they committed
the particular war crime.

Second, the Nuremberg trials established that individuals cannot shield themselves from liability for war
crimes by asserting that they were simply following orders issued by a superior in the chain of command.
Subordinates in the military or government are now bound by their obligations under international law,
obligations that transcend their duty to obey an order issued by a superior. Orders to initiate aggressive
(as opposed to defensive) warfare, to violate recognized rules and customs of warfare, or to persecute
civilians and prisoners are considered illegal under the Nuremberg principles.

Third, the Nuremberg trials clearly established three discrete substantive war crimes that are punishable
under international law: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and crimes in violation of
transnational obligations embodied in treaties and other agreements. Before the Nuremberg trials, these
crimes were not well defined, and persons who committed such crimes had never been punished by a
multinational tribunal. For these reasons the Nuremberg convictions have sometimes been criticized as
ex post facto justice.

The Nuremberg trials have also been criticized as "victor's justice." Historians have observed that the
Allied nations that tried and convicted the leading Nazis at Nuremberg did not come to the table with
clean hands. The Soviet Union had participated in Germany's invasion and occupation of Poland and had
been implicated in the massacre of more than a thousand Poles in the Katyn forest. Bombing raids
conducted by the United States and Great Britain during World War II left thousands of civilians dead in
cities like Dresden, Germany, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan. President Roosevelt had implemented
a relocation program for more than 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent that confined them to
concentration camps around the United States.
The Nuremberg trials were not typical partisan trials, though. The defendants were afforded the right to
counsel, plus a full panoply of evidentiary and procedural protections. The Nuremberg verdicts
demonstrate that these protections were taken seriously by the tribunal. The IMT completely exonerated
three defendants of war crimes and acquitted most of the remaining defendants of at least some
charges. Thus, the Nuremberg trials, while not perfect, changed the face of international law, both
procedurally and substantively.

Unprecedented Legal Procedures

In these unprecedented proceedings, the Allies discarded basic principles of Western jurisprudence,
perhaps most notably the well-established principle that in the absence of a law there can be neither
crime nor punishment – nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poene sine lege. Instead, the Tribunal established
new laws for the occasion, which were applied not only retroactively, but uniquely and exclusively to the
German defendants. The Allies thus refused to consider the German defense argument of tu quoque or
“you too” – that is, punishing the German defendants for actions that the Allies themselves also carried
out.

The Tribunal rejected defendants’ pleas of obeying higher orders, even though, as Irving points out,
precisely this had been affirmed as a valid defense under both British and American military law. Article
347 of the American Rules of Land Warfare, for example, specifically declares: “Members of the armed
forces are not punished for these crimes, provided they were committed on the orders or with the
permission of their governments or commanders.”

The Tribunal’s procedures, which were a blend of Allied procedures, differed markedly from German
practice. In Germany, as in most of continental Europe, the court’s primary objective is to ascertain the
truth. However, the Nuremberg Tribunal adopted a version of the American confrontational system, in
which each side introduces only the evidence that benefits its own case. But because the Allies had
confiscated all pertinent German documents and records, and refused access to them by the defense
attorneys, the prosecution had a tremendous advantage over the German defendants.

OPENING STATEMENT OF JUSTICE ROBERT JACKSON

The artifact of issue in this article is the Opening Statement of The Nuremberg Trial of the Major Nazi
War Criminals by Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America, Mr. Robert H. Jackson. Jackson, a
United States Associate Supreme Court Justice at the time of the trial, delivered the first words for the
side prosecuting the people most responsible for an estimated eleven million killings inside of Nazi
Germany and its occupied territories during World War II.   His choice of words in this prosecutorial
presentation of the facts was important not only to the finding of guilty verdicts for twenty-one top
officials of the Third Reich,   but also in the justification of the international tribunal itself.

The significance of undergoing an analysis of the narrative created by Jackson through this artifact is
instrumental to understanding why the trial came to be revered as a milestone in the development of
international law. 11  Throughout his opening of the trial, Jackson’s rhetoric creates two different stories
that can be traced back to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945. The clearest, and most expected,
story driven throughout the entire opening statement is the imposition of criminal penalties upon the
defendants. Just as important though is Jackson’s other message, which is to justify the implementation
of international criminal laws and the tribunal at Nuremberg.

Robert Jackson clearly laid out in his opening statements: the goals of the IMT, its justification for trying
the defendants, and the responsibility the IMT had for the future of international law.

he privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave
responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant,
and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their
being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of
vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most
significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of abstract speculations nor is it
created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most
mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace
of our times-aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the
punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great
power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which. leave no home in the
world untouched.

The Charter recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not take refuge in superior orders
nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of states. These twin principles working together have
heretofore resulted in immunity for practically everyone concerned in the really great crimes against
peace and mankind. Those in lower ranks were protected against liability by the orders of their
superiors. The superiors were protected because their orders were called acts of state. Under the
Charter, no defense based on either of these doctrines can be entertained. Modern civilization puts
unlimited weapons of destruction in the hands of men. It cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal
irresponsibility.

The establishment of the Nuremberg Trials changed the international status quo on criminal law. In
1945, at the end of the second World War, the four nations who had emerged victorious—Britain,
France, Russia, and the United States—held the responsibility to carry out retribution against the Nazis
for some of the most horrendous atrocities ever committed against mankind. 6  This responsibility came
into fruition with the four countries signing the London Agreement of August 8, 1945, which instituted a
process for prosecuting the most major war criminals by way of an International Military Tribunal. 7  The
Nuremberg Trial of the Major Nazi War Criminals, which occurred between November 1945 and October
1, 1946, was the first of the post-World War II trials maintained by this new international criminal
tribunal system. The trial proved to be particularly paramount to international law post-judgment in
December of 1946, when the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed the implementation and
decision of the court. 8 

The Nuremberg Principles

Defining War Crimes

Published in 1950 based on precedents set by IMT, the Nuremberg Principles lay guidelines for what
qualifies as a war crime, giving structure to human rights protection, and placing responsibility of
prosecuting war crimes on international community.

Though the Principles have been criticized by many lawmakers for being vague and "unenforcable", they
have been adopted by the United Nations International Law Commission and form the foundation of the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible
therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under
international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under
international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as
Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under
international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him
from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

Crimes against peace:

Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international

treaties, agreements or assurances;

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned
under (i).

War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or
deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory,
murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public
or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by
military necessity.

Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian
population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such
persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war
crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set
forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

Conclusion

The International Military Tribunal was a court to try the Nazi conspirators, but it also served as a stage
to set up international policy. The London Charter was written to be applicable exclusively to the IMT,
but it was also intended to be a fair trial that would be considered just by posterity. The judgments
needed to be fair, but also reciprocal. Jackson conducted the trials carefully, showing that the Nazis were
answerable to international law, but that other countries, namely the United States, did not fall under
the same type of foreign interference.

The Nuremberg trials are often seen as the pinnacle of international cooperation. A time when a group
of diverse nations came together and drew up a plan to charge the Nazis for crimes that defiled public
conscience. The grandiose charge of 'crimes against humanity' incurs a sense of commonality among all
nations; the belief that regardless of religion, race, or culture, that there are certain acts that are
abhorrent to a collective conscience of humanity.