Lessons from Nuremberg Trial
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Khan Ferdousour Rahman
THE principles of law laid down in Nuremberg Trial, brought about a radical change in the entire field of the laws of war in general and war crimes in particular. Report in the International Law Commission in its Second Session for Nuremberg Trial, the crimes for which the defendants were indicated were listed in the Charter, i.e. crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This trial made it clear that International Law can reach over and beyond traditional technicalities and prevent guilty individuals sheltering behind the abstract concept of the State. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal - "Crimes against International Law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provision of International Law be enforced."
During the end of World War II, the Alliances decided that German Officers and men, and members of the Nazi who had taken part in atrocities and war crimes would be tried for their offences after their capture. On August 08, 1945 an agreement was signed in London by representatives of France, Great Britain, Soviet Union and United States providing for the trial of the major War Criminals of the European Axis whose offences had no particular geographical location. The Charter was annexed to this agreement establishing the International Military Tribunal to try these criminals and specifying the crimes within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. By Article 6 of the Charter, the Tribunal was given the authority to bring people under trial who had committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Charter made it clear that the official position of any defendant, however exalted, would not absolve him from responsibility or mitigate punishment, while it was expressly stated that superiors' order would not constitute a defense, but might be considered in mitigating a punishment. It also powered the Tribunal to declare any group or organisation a criminal organisation, rendering any member of the particular group liable to trial before national, military or occupation courts which would be unable to question the finding of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Total twenty two German and Nazi leaders were indicted before the court together with six organisations. Out of those six organisations only two were acquitted. Out of accused leaders, three were acquitted, twelve including one who had been tried in absentia were sentenced to death, three received sentences of life imprisonment and remaining four were committed to prison for long term periods. The defendants had the plea that they were acting under direction or order of their commanders, so they should not be held responsible for acts committed by them in carrying out their orders. The Tribunal opined that they would be left behind the plea of superiors' order. Another plea was that they would be subject to any German Court only. The Tribunal stated that as the German had surrendered unconditionally, the sovereignty of Germany passed into the hands of the France, the UK, the USSR and the USA.
Lessons Learnt: Traditional view of protecting individual by doctrine of State sovereignty and plea of superiors orders in International Law were rejected by International Tribunal, which also enforced International Law for the first time in the history of Law of Nations. It provided the prospect of everlasting peace in the world by producing a deterrent effect on the future violators of world peace. It generated a consciousness and urged among leading nations of world to promote cause of progressive development of the International Law and its codification.
Though Nuremberg Trial marked the first step for further establishment of a true International Tribunal, but the main criticism was with the formation of Nuremberg Tribunal, which violated the fundamental principles of impartiality as the Judges were drawn exclusively from the victor countries.
The writer is a freelancer and can be reached at e-mail: ferdous3820@yahoo.co.uk
THE principles of law laid down in Nuremberg Trial, brought about a radical change in the entire field of the laws of war in general and war crimes in particular. Report in the International Law Commission in its Second Session for Nuremberg Trial, the crimes for which the defendants were indicated were listed in the Charter, i.e. crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This trial made it clear that International Law can reach over and beyond traditional technicalities and prevent guilty individuals sheltering behind the abstract concept of the State. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal - "Crimes against International Law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provision of International Law be enforced."
During the end of World War II, the Alliances decided that German Officers and men, and members of the Nazi who had taken part in atrocities and war crimes would be tried for their offences after their capture. On August 08, 1945 an agreement was signed in London by representatives of France, Great Britain, Soviet Union and United States providing for the trial of the major War Criminals of the European Axis whose offences had no particular geographical location. The Charter was annexed to this agreement establishing the International Military Tribunal to try these criminals and specifying the crimes within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. By Article 6 of the Charter, the Tribunal was given the authority to bring people under trial who had committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Charter made it clear that the official position of any defendant, however exalted, would not absolve him from responsibility or mitigate punishment, while it was expressly stated that superiors' order would not constitute a defense, but might be considered in mitigating a punishment. It also powered the Tribunal to declare any group or organisation a criminal organisation, rendering any member of the particular group liable to trial before national, military or occupation courts which would be unable to question the finding of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Total twenty two German and Nazi leaders were indicted before the court together with six organisations. Out of those six organisations only two were acquitted. Out of accused leaders, three were acquitted, twelve including one who had been tried in absentia were sentenced to death, three received sentences of life imprisonment and remaining four were committed to prison for long term periods. The defendants had the plea that they were acting under direction or order of their commanders, so they should not be held responsible for acts committed by them in carrying out their orders. The Tribunal opined that they would be left behind the plea of superiors' order. Another plea was that they would be subject to any German Court only. The Tribunal stated that as the German had surrendered unconditionally, the sovereignty of Germany passed into the hands of the France, the UK, the USSR and the USA.
Lessons Learnt: Traditional view of protecting individual by doctrine of State sovereignty and plea of superiors orders in International Law were rejected by International Tribunal, which also enforced International Law for the first time in the history of Law of Nations. It provided the prospect of everlasting peace in the world by producing a deterrent effect on the future violators of world peace. It generated a consciousness and urged among leading nations of world to promote cause of progressive development of the International Law and its codification.
Though Nuremberg Trial marked the first step for further establishment of a true International Tribunal, but the main criticism was with the formation of Nuremberg Tribunal, which violated the fundamental principles of impartiality as the Judges were drawn exclusively from the victor countries.
The writer is a freelancer and can be reached at e-mail: ferdous3820@yahoo.co.uk