Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Merit and demerit of international law
Merit and demerit of international law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Numerberg Trials Were Unfair
After World War II, the victorious Allies decided to hold a trial for the defeated Nazis. These trials lasted from November 20, 1945 till October 1, 1946. Although the victors claimed that they would give the accused a fair trial, upon closer inspection we can see that in reality, these trials were biased and were a “victor’s justice.”
After the war, each of the Allies leaders had their own idea for how they should deal with the Nazi’s. Stalin suggested that they should have trials, but here everyone is guilty and afterwards is shot. What then would be the point of having a trial then? It would just appear as a ‘play’ before they would perform their actual intentions. He may have suggested this also so that he could say that they were fair because they gave them a trial-but what sort of trial? Churchill even said that they should just be lined up and shot. If the leaders of the Allies were saying such things, how could we even expect the trials to be unbiased then? Each allied country had its own persecutors. All the judges at the trials came from the victorious countries as well. Most of the judges were American or Russian.
During the trials, the Americans put American justice over International Justice. It was wrong and unfair however to do such a thing because those who were guilty didn’t even come from the United States? Since the trials were supposed to be international in scope, they shouldn’t be following the justice of one country, but rather international justice. Although the Americans were applying “American justice” to the trials, they didn’t even follow their constitution while doing so. The US constitution states that laws cannot be made post-facto, but in Nuremberg, they created these laws (for example, crimes against humanity, and waging aggressive war) after the Germans had “committed” them. It is wrong however to charge defendants with crimes that didn’t exist in anyone’s books at the time they were committed. Although some might say that these crimes are “common knowledge,” they may in fact be only common knowledge to you. Not everyone in the world views things in the same way you might. John F. Kennedy even said about the Nuremberg trials that “The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it…[and] discard these Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.
The Nuremberg Trials is considered being both a step forward in for society as it brought the birth of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. However, the tribunal was a step back for society, this is because the Allies implicitly designed it to be a show of ‘Victor’s Justice’.
The Milgram experiment was designed and performed by Yale University social psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1961. Milgram created this experiment predominately to determine what would have motivated Germans to so readily conform to the demands put forth by the Nazi party. Milgram wished to answer his question, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (McLeod). At the time of these experiments, debates about the Nuremberg trials, particularly the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the major perpetrators in the Holocaust, were still ongoing. At these trials, many Nazi party officials and military officers were put on trial for committing “crimes against humanity.” Although some defendants pleaded guilty, others claimed that they were innocent and only following orders that were given to them by a higher authority, Adolf Hitler. In the end, twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death, three to life in prison, four to approximately fifteen year prison terms, and three were acquitted (“The Nuremberg Trials”)....
McKale, Donald M. Nazis after Hitler: how perpetrators of the Holocaust cheated justice and truth. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012. Print.
Kafka’s The Trial delves into the life of Josef K., a bank worker who gets himself tied up in an unknown trial, against an indefinable and ultimately unaccountable legal system. While the piece is a work of fiction it parallels many of the legal problems in existence during the period in which Kafka was writing and to an extent gives a fictitious account of many real events going on. Many parallels can be seen in the trials of Alfred Dreyfus, Oscar Wilde, John Scopes and Nikolai Bukharin in various ways. The book indirectly questions legal principals such as an accessible system and a clear understanding of the process. Fundamentally these principles are missing from the other real trials in question, and represent in most cases a serious miscarriage of justice.
Even after the trials had occurred many people were still looking for justice. Many people did not believe that Hitler was dead. They thought he was still alive and in hiding and they wanted to find him to kill him. They wanted to issue justice to him. They even had Nazi hunters who went all over the world tracking down and capturing Nazis to bring them back to have their own trial.
In early October 1945, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia issued an indictment against 24 men and six organizations.2 The indictment appointed against these men and organizations contained four courts: conspiracy to wage aggressive war, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The trial at Nuremberg opened on November 20, 1945.3 For judgemen...
One of the most well-known trials is the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials were a sequence of 13 trials that took place in Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949. According to history.com, “Nuremberg had been the site of annual Nazi propaganda; holding the postwar trials there marked the symbolic end of Hitler’s government.” The people that were going to be charged were Nazi Party Officials, high-ranking military officers, German industrialists, doctors, and lawyers. They were charged with crimes against peace and humanity. The leader of the Nazi’s, Adolf Hitler took his own life before he could be tried. During the trials, the m...
The main focus of the post war testimony of Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess, Commandant at Auschwitz from May 1940 until December, 1943, is the mass extermination of Jews during World War II. His signed affidavit had a profound impact at the Post-War trials of Major War Criminals held at Nuremburg from November 14, 1945 to October 1, 1946. His testimony is a primary source that details and describes his personal account of the timeline, who ordered Auschwitz to become a death camp, and the means used to execute and exterminate millions of Jews. Obtained while tortured nearly to death under British custody, the authenticity and reliability of this document is questioned due to arguable inconsistencies that exist. However, the events sworn to in his testimony have been recounted and corroborated by witnesses and thousands of survivors.
Prosecutors have been slacking on the prosecution of Nazi affiliates for long enough, and it’s time for justice to be served. German laws concerning war crimes have recently taken a change for the better. According to Spiegel, a well respected international source for news world wide, stated that a prior conviction of a Nazi concentration camp guard for the murders of thousands of Jews sparked hope in the search for justice. “Demjanjuk was found guilty by a Munich court and sentenced to five years in jail for being an accessory to the murder of 28,060 Jews while he was a guard at Sobibor in occupied Poland.” According to Kurt Schrimm, a German prosecutor, “the Demjanjuk conviction represented a new interpretation of the law.” Because of Demjanjuk’s conviction, prosecutors no longer need to establish culpability in specific murders to secure a conviction. Being an accomplice to the murders that took place in the Holocaust is now enough to find Oskar Gröning guilty for the countless charges he is being charged with. Therefore, under the German legal system, Gröning is guilty for the act of supporting the Nazi regime’s efforts to extinct the Jews and conquer the European
In closing, the criminal trial process has been able to reflect the morals and ethics of society to a great extent, despite the few limitations, which hinder its effectiveness. The moral and ethical standards have been effectively been reflected to a great extent in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury
"The Nuremberg Laws: Background & Overview." Jewish Virtual Library. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. .
Jain, M. (2001). Mitigating the Dangers of Capital Convictions Based on Eyewitness Testimony Through Treason's Two-Witness Rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 761-790.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
“The four chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal (IMT)—Robert H. Jackson (United States), Francois de Menthon (France), Roman A. Rudenko (Soviet Union), and Sir Hartley Shawcross (Great Britain)—hand down indictments against 24 leading Nazi officials,” (“The Nuremberg Trials”). Alongside the judges stood A prosecutorial staff of over 600 Americans plus additional hundreds from the other three powers assembled and began interviewing potential witnesses and identifying documents from among the 100,000 captured for the prosecution case,” (Doug Linder). This was a time in history that really brought together the great nations and made them what they are
Prior to WWII any concept of international human rights would not have been able to be Kept. State sovereignty was still the norm leaders around the globe followed when it came to international relations. Of course that all changed after the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust were exposed to the global community. After what had happen to the Jewish population in Europe at the hands of Hitler's army was reviled to the world, the international community realized that there was something to the whole idea of human rights that could quite possibly go beyond the recognizable sovereignty of independent states(Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.4). December 17, 1942 was the date that leaders of the allied forces of WWII that included the US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union came together and issued the first declaration that officially noted and acknowledged the mass murder of European Jews and settled to find a solution to prosecute those responsible for violence against civilians. Because of the type of acts that were committed some political leaders advocated for summary executions instead of trials (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007). If you really think about it by doing this the allied forces would have been defeating the purpose of what they were trying to accomplish which was to make those responsible for the acts to pay but by giving them a f...