Talk:Nuremberg Tribunal

This is not an accurate account of the significance and development of international law. The assertion of individual responsibility for criminal acts in international law is the most important contribution made by the Nuremberg Tribunal, and it is not even mentioned here.

The article, like all of these connected with post WW II legal and political order, needs to be much more firmly rooted in legal scholarship. i am not opposed to the writing of primarily historical articles, but when they are dealing with issues of law they have to be done properly. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not an article of the significance and development of international law, which has its own article. SIt may be surprising, but this article is about the International Military Tribunal, beginning with what it was. It is in development, and is first intended to describe the Tribunal itself, and, as its first expansion, to discuss the convening of the Tribunal and its legitimacy. Part of the discussion of the development of the international law aspects were going into the war crime article you blanked.

I do plan to address some of the issues of its influence on law. The idea of individual responsibility is not unique to this tribunal; there is significant case law about command responsibility, especially In re Yamashita.

It would be appreciated if you contributed sourced text for your matters of concern, rather than generic objections. The article is still being improved, and, in spite of locked pages, be interlinked with multiple articles. If you are so concerned about international law, there is an article on it, certainly sparse, awaiting improvement. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The naming of the article is pedantic and in violation of CZ naming policy. It is commonly known as the Nuremberg Tribunal, despite the potential confusion with other tribunals. Of course, it is not primarily about law: however, its ability to try individuals is THE most important thing about it, and you cannot omit that from the description. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made an Editor Ruling on this. Whether you consider it pedantic or not, the name is ambiguous. I make an Editor Ruling that this is an inappropriate, ambiguous name. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)