#nuremberg principles

 In the aftermath of World War II, the world grappled with the question of how to hold individuals accountable for heinous crimes committed during the conflict. Out of the ashes of war and genocide, the Nuremberg Trials were convened in 1945-46 to prosecute leading Nazi officials for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other atrocities. From these landmark trials emerged the Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines that would forever shape the course of international criminal law.

What Are the Nuremberg Principles? The Nuremberg Principles are a set of seven legal standards that arose from the judgments at the Nuremberg Trials. They were formulated by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950 and have since been a cornerstone in the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Principle I: Any person who commits an international crime is responsible and liable to punishment.

Principle II: Being a Head of State or responsible government official does not exempt a person from responsibility.

Principle III: Acting under orders is not a valid defence if a moral choice is possible.

Principle IV: Individuals have a responsibility to disobey unjust orders that lead to international crimes.

Principle V: A fair trial is guaranteed to the accused.

Principle VI: Defines the crimes punishable under international law, including crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Principle VII: Complicity in these crimes is itself a punishable offence.

Historical Context: At the time of the Nuremberg Trials, the world was witnessing something unprecedented: the prosecution of individuals, including heads of state and military leaders, for atrocities committed during a war. This was not merely a trial of Nazi war criminals; it was an assertion that individuals could be held accountable under international law, regardless of rank or office.

This shift marked the emergence of a new framework of justice, in which moral responsibility transcended national borders and "just following orders" was no longer an acceptable excuse.

Key Cases: Highlight some of the key cases from the Nuremberg Trials, such as the prosecution of Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, and Albert Speer. These cases set critical legal precedents, particularly around the concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The Legacy of the Nuremberg Principles: The Nuremberg Principles laid the groundwork for future international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002. Their influence can be seen in the prosecution of war criminals from conflicts in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and more recently, in cases related to Syria and Myanmar.

Additionally, the principles continue to resonate in discussions about justice and accountability, from military interventions to human rights violations.

Challenges and Criticisms: While the Nuremberg Principles are widely hailed as a milestone in international law, they have not been without controversy. Critics have pointed out that the Nuremberg Trials were essentially "victor's justice," as only the defeated Axis powers were tried, leaving the conduct of the Allies unexamined.

Furthermore, the enforcement of these principles remains inconsistent, with powerful nations often shielding their leaders from international prosecution or exerting political pressure to avoid trials.

War Crimes 

A war crime is a serious violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slavelabor camps," "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war," the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity."[1]

Similar concepts, such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The modern concept of a war crime was further developed under the auspices of theNuremberg Trials based on the definition in the London Charter that was published on August 8, 1945. (Also see Nuremberg Principles.) Along with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which are often committed during wars and in concert with war crimes.

Article 22 of The Hague IV ("Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907") states that "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited"[2] and over the last century many other treaties have introduced positive laws that place constraints on belligerents (see International treaties on the laws of war). Some of the provisions, such as those in The Hague, the Geneva, and Genocide Conventions, are considered to be part of customary international law, and are binding on all.[3][4] Others are only binding on individuals if the belligerent power to which they belong is a party to the treaty which introduced the constraint.

History  

Early example

The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474, was the first "international" war crimes trial, and also of command responsibility.[6][7] He was convicted and beheaded for crimes that "he as a knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although he had argued that he was only "following orders".  

Hague Conventions

Main article: Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)

The Hague Conventions were international treaties negotiated at the First and Second Peace Conferences at The Hague, Netherlands in 1899 and 1907, respectively, and were, along with the First and Second Geneva Conventions (1864 and 1909), among the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law.

Geneva Conventions

             Upon return to The Hague, I was nervous that I wouldn’t be privy to the same types of paradigm shifts that were typical of the first. Yet, I have been. Through the weeklong Mount Pleasant class and the few days we’ve been in The Hague this far, I’ve come to deepen my understanding for a myriad of ideas, institutions and concepts. One of these ideas is that international law is not static. It expands as our understanding of natural law, morality and jus cogens develops with history. 

According to William R. Nifong,

“there is a natural order within the universe that it is possible to ascertain the existence and nature of this order…and that human laws should and do flow”.

International law, in many ways, is founded on these principles of natural law and morality. As discussed, in my previous post on the “necessity of discussion”, our understanding of natural law progresses through discourse.  Whether or not one might agree with the blurry lines between law and morality, does not negate the fact that international law does indeed find its roots in the need for developing humanity with universal principles. We must also acknowledge that international law is changing based on newly discovered facets of natural law. One time period, in which the normative framework of international law experienced considerable growth after particularly after World War Two when humanity was shocked by war.  

            The first International Criminal Tribunal was the Nuremberg Trials, in which war criminals on the side of Nazi Germany were prosecuted for their atrocities. This led to future international criminal tribunals being used as a way of procuring justice during and after conflicts. These tribunals include the temporary International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and many more. Eventually the idea that no one—regardless of status and power—should be able to commit horrific crimes with out repercussions led to the formation of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). “Crimes against humanity” were first prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials. They was defined in the Nuremberg Principles (a document of international law derived from the Nuremberg Trials) as

“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.”

            Although, “Genocide” is a commonly understood term now, it was inexistent until after World War Two. However, due to the systematic and brutal murder of about six million people of Jewish descent, the human consciousness collectively rose up to declare that such acts targeting a racial group should be prosecutable. Soon after, the horrors of the Holocaust eventually led to the adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) on December 9, 1948. 

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) the next day with “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The document declared that there is a natural order, a moral basis for the expected rights of every human. The UDHR has become one of the key resolutions in international law, confirming that there is something meaningful about humankind that needs to be preserved. This was vital after it was nearly decimated in the brutality of World War One and World War Two. When the world needed the essence of humanity, the international community developed the UDHR, a document declaring what should have already been known.

"One bothersome aspect about the reaction to this event is the notion that bin Laden is some sort of singular evil, someone so beyond the pale of what is acceptable that no decent person would question what happened here:  he killed civilians on American soil and the normal debates just don't apply to him.  Thus, anyone who even questions whether this was the right thing to do, as President Obama put it, "needs to have their head examined" (presumably that includes Benjamin Ferencz).  In other words, so uniquely evil is bin Laden that unquestioningly affirming the rightness of this action is not just a matter of politics and morality but mental health.  Thus, despite the lingering questions about what happened, it's time, announced John Kerry, to "shut up and move on."  I know Kerry is speaking for a lot of people:  let's all agree this was Good and stop examining it.  Tempting as that might be -- and it is absolutely far easier to adhere to that demand than defy it -- there is real harm from leaving some of these questions unexamined."