Nuremberg Trials and International Law Mary Jean Lopardo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 8 Article 18 Number 2 February, 1978 2-1978 Nuremberg Trials and International Law Mary Jean Lopardo Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Lopardo, Mary Jean (1978) "Nuremberg Trials and International Law," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 8 : No. 2 , Article 18. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol8/iss2/18 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. proscribed penalties. Secondly, prohibi tions common to the vast majority of Nuremberg Trials And penal codes employed in civilized States were utilized. Thirdly, these sources were International Law supplemented by customary or common international legal concepts governing humanitarian views of warfare. by Mary Jean Lopardo In essence, the Charter of the Interna tional Military Tribunal and the ensuing The outcome of the Nuremberg trials jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or judgment at Nuremberg set the revolu was a judgment which imposed criminal not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated, tionary precedent that a violation of inter sanctions against specific individuals who Leaders, organizers, instigators and ac national legal principles can be an inter were held personally responsible for plan complices participating in the formula national crime, even when no specifiC ning and waging the Nazi war of aggres tion or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the treaty provisions exist precisely defining sion. This historic, judicial proceeding foregoing crimes are responsible for all the crime and sanctions to be applied. The was conceived in London, England on acts performed by any persons in ex International Military Tribunal greatly ex August 8, 1945 when the United States, ecution of such plan, panded international law by its final affir Great Britain, France and the Soviet mation that individuals could be held Union established the International Mili Of the twenty-two Nazi defendants, criminally responsible for their roles in tary Tribunal for the trial and punishment Schacht, von Papen and Fritzsche were the planning and waging of a war of ag of the major Axis war criminals. These found not guilty on any counts; Hess, gression. This result of the Nuremberg four Allied powers provided a Charter Funk, Doenitz, Raeder, von Scherach, trials so impressed the United Nations which defined the constitutional and juris Speer and von Neurath received prison that on December 11, 1946 the General dictional powers of the International Mili terms ranging from ten years to life; Assembly affirmed a resolution offiCially tary Tribunal and the laws and procedures Goering, von Ribbentrop, Keitel, recognizing the principles of international it was to follow during the Nuremberg Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, law as enumerated by the Charter of the trials. Streicher, Saukel, JodI, Bormann and International Military Tribunal and the Between November 20, 1945 and Oc Seyes-Inquart were sentenced to death by Nuremberg judgment. Thus, the judgment tober 1, 1946, twenty-two Nazi war crim hanging. Although only twenty-two Nazis at Nuremberg clarified the United Nations inals were tried at Nuremberg for the were tried with but twelve sentenced to pOSition for the future that international follOWing offenses as outlined in Article 6 death, the judgment at Nuremberg exer law does prohibit aggressive warfare and of the Charter of the International Military cised a tremendous impact, not only in that a breach of this international concept Tribunal: serving as a catharsis for the world con science, but also in setting unprecedented can lead to serious sanctions against in (a) Crimes Against Peace: namely, landmarks in international law. dividual offenders. planning, preparation, initiatiori or The Nuremberg arena should be viewed waging of a war of aggression, or a war * * * in violation of international treaties, as a milestone in the development of in agreements or assurances, or participa ternational law since there existed no The Nuremberg trials have been both tion in a common plan or conspiracy for judicial precedent for the creation of an extolled as a milestone in the develop the accomplishment of any of the foregoing: International Military Tribunal. Also, ment of international law and vehemently criticized as a travesty of justice. This dis (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of there were no legislative guidelines man the laws or customs of war. Such viola dating such action because there is no in crepancy of opinion in assessing the prin tions shall include, but not be limited ternational legislative body. The innova ciples of international justice espoused by to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation the Nuremberg tribunal was due to the to slave labor or for any other purpose tive concepts of international law spring of civilian population of or in occupied ing from the Nuremberg incident were clash between radically opposed political territory, murder or ill-treatment of derived basically from the sources govern traditions debated before and during the prisoners of war or persons on the seas, Nuremberg trials. killing of hostages, plunder of public or ing all international legal principles, private property, wanton destruction of namely, written treaties, agreements and On the one hand, there existed the cities, towns or villages, or devastation conventions such as the Hague Conven belief that not all is fair in war and that not justified by military necessity; tions of 1899 and 1907, the Kellogg there is no justification for cruelty. The (c) Crimes Against Humanity: namely, Briand Pact of 1928, the Geneva Prisoner ruthless torture, rapine, massacres, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts of War, Red Cross and Protection of enslavements and calculated executions committed against any civilian popula Civilian Conventions of 1929 and 1949; committed by the Nazi henchmen in their tion, before or during the war; or per however, all of these treaties state general quest for world dominance defied the laws secutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in principles on the rules of war and remain of legitimate warfare. The victims of Nazi connection with any crimes within the silent as to the means of enforcement and bestiality cried out for retribution and in Ill] THE FORUM order to reestablish world law and order, static system but a progressive one, grow referred to as the father of international justice through law was needed to punish ing as the world grows. Thus, an accept law, defined just and unjust wars in the individual malefactors for their heinous ance of the opposition's antiquated tradition of his Catholic predecessors. crimes against humanity. The general reasoning would vitiate both reason and Grotius also declared that the only just consensus among the major Allied Powers justice. cause for war is self-defense and that the was that in order to salvage our heritage The argument encompassing customs only justification for war is to promote of justice, war criminals had to be and traditions that have been universally justice. He believed that right reason is punished to guard against future war accepted was buttressed by natural law the only basis for ascertaining the proper atrocities. philosophers dating back through the conduct of States in relation to their deal On the other hand, those who opposed ages. St. Augustine espoused some of the ings with other States. "The dictate of the International Military Tribunal earliest views on peace and war by dis right reason which points out that a given claimed that justice could not be served tinguishing between just and unjust wars. act because of its opposition to or confor whenever the victor tried the vanquished. "To make war on your neighbors, and mity with man's rational nature, is either The advocates of this pOSition viewed an thence to proceed to others, and through morally wrong or morally necessary, and international trial of war criminals as a mere lust of dominion to crush and sub accordingly forbidden or commanded by mock-trial which would end in a blood due people who do you no harm, what God, the author of nature." Thus, in ac bath for seeking vengeance. else is this to be called than robbery on a cord with this mode of philisophical Aside from these intense, emotional gut grand scale?" According to Augustine, thought, the International Military Tri reactions lay the main issues. At bottom only wars fought in self-defense can be bunal in its final judgment at Nuremberg level, the debate centered around two ma considered just and no other motive is a reiterated these views by stating that wag jor queries: 1) whether aggressive warfare proper one for war since the ultimate aim ing an aggressive war was not only an in could be classified as an international of a just war is the peace which it should ternational crime, but the supreme inter crime and 2) whether particular in bring between warring States. national crime. dividuals involved in the planning and ex Augustine's theories were further Second, it was frequently objected that