Introduction
Humanity has long learned how to judge individual villains, criminal gangs, and illegal armed groups. However, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was the first experience in the history of condemning crimes on a national scale. It was this trial that, for the first time, dealt with the ruling regime, its correctional institutions, and the highest political and military figures.
The sentence of the International Military Tribunal against the prominent military leaders of Nazi Germany was carried out on the night of October 16, 1946. Due to this verdict, for the first time in the history of humanity and world jurisprudence and practice, it has been documented that war is evil by its very nature. Its consequences are not limited to the warring parties alone but affect the entire world. The Nuremberg Trials served as the birth of a new legal order, laid the foundation of legal civilization – the rights and freedoms of the individual, and recognized aggression as the gravest crime.
Indeed, because of its legal and organizational novelty, there were significant differences of opinion among the judges of the Tribunal and jurists on specific problems. Nevertheless, they are nothing compared with the clash of views about the same events and people that will occur in the future. United in their rejection of violence against the individual and the state, the world’s publicity proved that they could successfully confront universal evil and deliver justice. Wyzanski and Jackson have long debated whether the Nuremberg Tribunal was the proper application of the law. However, given the importance of individual rights and liberties, Jackson has an accurate position on this issue.
Position in Favor of the Tribunal as the Source of the Rule of Law
Jackson’s arguments are persuasive since they are fully consistent with human rights and freedoms. State leaders dare not ignore the firmly expressed will of the people and stoop to double standards. On November 1, in his opening statement, Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor, said of the defendants: “These are symbols of the brutal nationalism that have plunged Europe into the abyss of war” (Zvyagintsev 65). Civilization cannot afford to compromise with social forces that will gain new power.
It is valid, for these apparent offenses will continue if such cruelty is forgiven and unpunished. Jackson rightly points out that the Tribunal is not a violation of pre-existing principles of international law because each of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was prohibited by international law at the time of the outbreak of World War II (Adams 68). The Tribunal is merely the result of the codification of conventional and customary rules of international law that have developed in this area. For the first time, war was declared a grave crime against humanity in domestic law (Bufacchi 349). Moreover, the Statute of the League of Nations imposed certain limitations on the right of states to resort to war.
People who committed atrocities realized the cruelty and wrongfulness of their actions even before the Nuremberg statute was formed because their actions contradicted all existing international norms. Since the previous possibilities of justifying murder by ambiguous interpretations of the law’s application to past actions, it is possible to assume that the probability of avoiding punishment exists (Zvyagintsev 35). However, the Nuremberg Trials proved that a brutal crime must be punished, which became one of the most significant starting points in the development of international law.
Contra Position
Nevertheless, the Nuremberg Trial was the center of legal and political controversy, and it faced procedural difficulties due to the absence of precedent for an international trial of war criminals. One of the individuals who had concerns about the Tribunal was Charles Wyzanski. This famous American jurist saw the Tribunal as high politics masquerading as law. His argument about the constitutionality of a tribunal is particularly noteworthy. Wyzanski argued that such decisions were mainly due to applying the ex post facto principle, which could delay the coming of the day of world law rather than facilitate it (Zvyagintsev 15). The application of ex post facto exceptions to the law could lead to the domination of man rather than the law, and this is a strong argument against the creation of a tribunal. There were other views, including that of the defendants, which criticized the action of the Tribunal as a form of victor’s justice.
Personal Viewpoint
Accusations of the ineligibility of the Nuremberg Trials, which arose years after its completion among Western revisionist historians, some lawyers, and neo-Nazis, are at the very least untenable. It is necessary to emphasize that all the defendants were indicted on October 18, 1945, more than a month before the trial began, and they could prepare their defense (Adams 88). Thus, the fundamental rights of the defendants were respected, and Jackson correctly asserts that the trial was not an act of revenge but a celebration of justice before fascism.
Admittedly, Wyzanski’s opinion that everything was not smooth from the point of view of legal norms in the organization and conduct of the Nuremberg trials is logical. However, one has to consider that it was the first international court of its kind. No rigorous jurist who understands this would ever argue that Nuremberg did nothing progressive or significant for the development of international law.
The Nuremberg Trials were the first and most significant event in history. It defined new types of international crimes firmly embedded in many states’ international law and national legislation. Except for recognizing aggression as a crime against peace at Nuremberg, it was the first time that officials responsible for planning, preparing, and unleashing wars of aggression were held criminally accountable (Zvyagintsev 65). The justification of people who have committed cruel deeds is what is a contradiction of the law. At the same time, recognizing the impossibility of avoiding responsibility is the most essential principle of international law.
Conclusion
The bitter experience of the Second World War forced a new perspective on humanity’s many problems and made everyone on Earth responsible for the present and future. There seemed to be brilliant prospects for all countries to solve problems collectively and peacefully without wars and violence. Unfortunately, humanity is all too quickly forgetting the lessons of the past.
The successful experience confronting aggression and terror during World War II is still relevant today. Time is a harsh judge, absolute and not determined by people’s actions. It does not forgive disrespectful attitudes to the verdicts, which it has already pronounced once, be it an individual or an entire nation or state. Unfortunately, the hands-on dial never shows humankind the vector of movement.
The International Military Tribunal’s activities are often called the Nuremberg epilogue. This metaphor is quite justified concerning the executed leaders of the Third Reich and the dissolved criminal organizations. Nevertheless, as one can see, evil turned out to be more resilient than many imagined in 1945-1946, in the euphoria of the Great Victory. No one today can claim that freedom and democracy have finally and irrevocably settled in the world. It begs the question: How much and what efforts must be made to draw concrete conclusions from the Nuremberg process that would be a prologue to a world order without wars and violence?
Works Cited
Adams, David M. Philosophical Problems in the Law, Cengage Learning ,1996.
Bufacchi, Vittorio. “Truth, Lies and Tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth.” Philosophy & Social Criticism, vol. 47, no.3, 2021, pp. 347-361.
Zvyagintsev, Alexander. The Nuremberg Trials. Glagoslav Publications, 2019.