Nuremberg: Procedural due process at the International Military Tribunal

<p>For over sixty years, lawyers and historians have discussed the credibility and repercussions of the Nuremberg Trial (1945–1946). This paper argues that the defendants’ procedural due process rights were partially protected at Nuremberg, although there were gross breaches of particular fundamental due process rights. The Nuremberg Trial at the International Military Tribunal was conducted by the four Allied Powers to try the upper echelon Nazi war criminals following the Second World War. The London Charter, drafted by the Allies, outlined the trial procedure to be adopted, and provided certain guarantees in attempt to secure a fair trial for the twenty-two defendants. This paper examines the history of fundamental due process rights (recognised in both continental Europe and common law jurisdictions) and analyses the extent to which these rights were breached at Nuremberg. This paper further argues that despite the defendants being afforded more rights than they could have expected given the circumstances, such breaches significantly compromised the integrity of the trial.</p>

Nuremberg: Procedural due process at the International Military Tribunal

<p>For over sixty years, lawyers and historians have discussed the credibility and repercussions of the Nuremberg Trial (1945–1946). This paper argues that the defendants’ procedural due process rights were partially protected at Nuremberg, although there were gross breaches of particular fundamental due process rights. The Nuremberg Trial at the International Military Tribunal was conducted by the four Allied Powers to try the upper echelon Nazi war criminals following the Second World War. The London Charter, drafted by the Allies, outlined the trial procedure to be adopted, and provided certain guarantees in attempt to secure a fair trial for the twenty-two defendants. This paper examines the history of fundamental due process rights (recognised in both continental Europe and common law jurisdictions) and analyses the extent to which these rights were breached at Nuremberg. This paper further argues that despite the defendants being afforded more rights than they could have expected given the circumstances, such breaches significantly compromised the integrity of the trial.</p>

The Nuremberg Justice Trial 1947: Vengeance of the Victors?

<p>Nuremberg became famous for the 13 Nuremberg Trials against the leading German officials after World War II. Following the first trial against the remaining Nazi leaders before the Allied International Military Tribunal in 1945-1946, the United States initiated 12 subsequent proceedings against leading members of all areas of Germany's society. The Justice Trial against 16 representatives of Nazi Germany's judicial system was the third of these trials and held before US Military Tribunal III in 1947. Organised and held under the aegis of the United States as one of the war's victors, the trials were seen by many as simple acts of vengeance, hidden behind a smokescreen of legality. Therefore, especially in post-war Germany, the trials were often described as victor's justice. Yet, besides investigations relating to specific aspects of this allegation, a profound analysis of this issue has not been done for the Justice Trial. This study aims to help in closing this gap. Focussing on the issue of victor's justice, the work analyses and evaluates all stages of the Justice Trial, from its legal basis, to the planning and preparation, to the proceedings and judgments, to the enforcement of the sentences after the trial. In the end, it is concluded that only two aspects, the violation of the principle of separation of powers and the restriction to initiate trials only against German nationals, can be seen as examples of victor's justice. All other aspects cannot be proved as examples of victor's justice; whether Germany's state sovereignty was violated, whether the judges were impartial, whether the ex post facto principle was violated, whether the defendants could be held individually responsible, whether the defendants received a fair trial, whether the trial was justified from a moral point of view, whether the defendants were selected for appropriate reasons, whether the Tribunal analysed and evaluated the Nazi legal system and the defendant's role therein reasonably, whether the US judges and prosecutors were qualified enough, and whether the early release of the convicted defendants in the 1950s was arbitrary. The Justice Trial and all other Nuremberg Trials, in many ways, set unique precedents for international criminal law. The legacy, therefore, is primarily a positive one. Thus, overall, it is concluded that the limited examples of victor's justice within the Justice Trial do not ultimately undermine these achievements.</p>

The Nuremberg Justice Trial 1947: Vengeance of the Victors?

<p>Nuremberg became famous for the 13 Nuremberg Trials against the leading German officials after World War II. Following the first trial against the remaining Nazi leaders before the Allied International Military Tribunal in 1945-1946, the United States initiated 12 subsequent proceedings against leading members of all areas of Germany's society. The Justice Trial against 16 representatives of Nazi Germany's judicial system was the third of these trials and held before US Military Tribunal III in 1947. Organised and held under the aegis of the United States as one of the war's victors, the trials were seen by many as simple acts of vengeance, hidden behind a smokescreen of legality. Therefore, especially in post-war Germany, the trials were often described as victor's justice. Yet, besides investigations relating to specific aspects of this allegation, a profound analysis of this issue has not been done for the Justice Trial. This study aims to help in closing this gap. Focussing on the issue of victor's justice, the work analyses and evaluates all stages of the Justice Trial, from its legal basis, to the planning and preparation, to the proceedings and judgments, to the enforcement of the sentences after the trial. In the end, it is concluded that only two aspects, the violation of the principle of separation of powers and the restriction to initiate trials only against German nationals, can be seen as examples of victor's justice. All other aspects cannot be proved as examples of victor's justice; whether Germany's state sovereignty was violated, whether the judges were impartial, whether the ex post facto principle was violated, whether the defendants could be held individually responsible, whether the defendants received a fair trial, whether the trial was justified from a moral point of view, whether the defendants were selected for appropriate reasons, whether the Tribunal analysed and evaluated the Nazi legal system and the defendant's role therein reasonably, whether the US judges and prosecutors were qualified enough, and whether the early release of the convicted defendants in the 1950s was arbitrary. The Justice Trial and all other Nuremberg Trials, in many ways, set unique precedents for international criminal law. The legacy, therefore, is primarily a positive one. Thus, overall, it is concluded that the limited examples of victor's justice within the Justice Trial do not ultimately undermine these achievements.</p>

International individual obligations and international responsibilities of individuals

Depending on the state, an individual may not have the procedural capacity to appeal to the Court, but as a result of changes in the international community, they have gained the right to sue in international courts. This development is a factor that will be taken into account in all research on the international subjectivity of the individual. Key words: International individual obligations, legal sanctions, UN Charter, legal responsibility, international military tribunal

The abduction of General Kreipe in Crete: bloodless or bloody?

This article examines the German reaction to the abduction by the SOE (Special Operations Executive) of General Kreipe in Crete in May 1944 and questions whether the operation should have been launched. Observance of the Laws and Customs of War as defined at the time had been compromised by SOE's charter from the outset, and the reaction of the occupying powers – Germany and Italy – to partisan warfare evolved accordingly. The article concludes by highlighting the legal findings of the American Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg trial of the ‘Balkan Generals’ and contrasts them with the Athens trial of Generals Müller and Bräuer.

THE LEGAL HERITAGE OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL: A HISTORICAL ASPECT

The main principles and norms of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal are described. Their importance for the development of international law and cooperation of states in the prevention of military conflicts is shown.