Nuremberg Trials: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
No edit summary
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
  | url = http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/nuremberg.html
  | url = http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/nuremberg.html
  | publisher = ArchivesHub, a national gateway to descriptions of archives in UK universities and colleges}}</ref> It was not a conventional trial, and there was no body of international law to guide it. Few would argue that many of the charges were ''[[ex post facto]]'', for offenses, such as [[crimes against humanity]], which were not recognized in international law at the time they were committed. Some of the offenses, such as [[crimes against peace]], arguably violated the [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]], but that treaty did not prescribe enforcement.
  | publisher = ArchivesHub, a national gateway to descriptions of archives in UK universities and colleges}}</ref> It was not a conventional trial, and there was no body of international law to guide it. Few would argue that many of the charges were ''[[ex post facto]]'', for offenses, such as [[crimes against humanity]], which were not recognized in international law at the time they were committed. Some of the offenses, such as [[crimes against peace]], arguably violated the [[Kellogg-Briand Pact]], but that treaty did not prescribe enforcement.
One argument for the trials' legitimacy stated: <blockquote>"It has been argued that the Tribunal cannot be regarded as a court in the true sense because, as its members represent the victorious Allied Nations, they must lack that impartiality which is an essential in all judicial procedure. ... As no man can be a judge in his own case, so no allied tribunal can be a judge in a case in which members of the enemy government or forces are on trial. Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens." <ref name=Goodheart>{{citation
| author = A.L. Goodheart
| title = The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials
| journal = Juridical Review | date = April 1946
| url = http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/}}</ref>
==Planning and conduct==
==Planning and conduct==
While the Allies had, for some time, been discussing how to handle the leaders of the Third Reich, the formal IMT opened in Berlin on October 18, 1945.  Proceedings began in Nuremberg on November 14, 1945, and ended with the sentences on October 1, 1946.
While the Allies had, for some time, been discussing how to handle the leaders of the Third Reich, the formal IMT opened in Berlin on October 18, 1945.  Proceedings began in Nuremberg on November 14, 1945, and ended with the sentences on October 1, 1946.

Revision as of 18:24, 17 February 2009

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nuremberg_Trials&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Template:TOC-right The International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg by the four major Allied powers in Europe, convened as the Allied Control Commission, this proceeding tried the designated Major War Criminals of Nazi Germany, as well as determining whether certain Nazi organizations were to be considered as criminal conspiracies to which membership was a crime. It complemented the International Military Tribunal (Tokyo) of the Major War Criminals of the Empire of Japan, and was followed by a series of Nuremberg Military Tribunals conducted by the United States.

This was an unprecedented event in international law. [1] It was not a conventional trial, and there was no body of international law to guide it. Few would argue that many of the charges were ex post facto, for offenses, such as crimes against humanity, which were not recognized in international law at the time they were committed. Some of the offenses, such as crimes against peace, arguably violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact, but that treaty did not prescribe enforcement.

One argument for the trials' legitimacy stated:

"It has been argued that the Tribunal cannot be regarded as a court in the true sense because, as its members represent the victorious Allied Nations, they must lack that impartiality which is an essential in all judicial procedure. ... As no man can be a judge in his own case, so no allied tribunal can be a judge in a case in which members of the enemy government or forces are on trial. Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens." [2]

Planning and conduct

While the Allies had, for some time, been discussing how to handle the leaders of the Third Reich, the formal IMT opened in Berlin on October 18, 1945. Proceedings began in Nuremberg on November 14, 1945, and ended with the sentences on October 1, 1946.

Convicted defendants condemned to death were subsequently executed, at Nuremberg, on October 16, 1946.[3] Those defendants subject to imprisonment were held at Spandau Prison in Berlin, which closed after the last prisoner, Rudolf Hess, died on August 17, 1987.

Defendants

Individual

An opening session of the IMT was held at Berlin on 18 October 1945; the tribunal convened at Nuremberg on 14 November 1945 and concluded its business with the passing of sentence on twenty-two defendants on 1 October 1946. These defendants were:

Organizational

References

  1. ↑ Papers of the International Military Tribunal and the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, ArchivesHub, a national gateway to descriptions of archives in UK universities and colleges, University of Southampton Libraries Special Collections Reference: GB 0738 MS 200
  2. ↑ A.L. Goodheart (April 1946), "The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials", Juridical Review
  3. ↑ , The Executions"The Sentencing and Execution of Nazi War Criminals, 1946", Eyewitness to History
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nuremberg_Trials&oldid=583629"