Nuremberg Trials: Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity

Running Head: NUREMBERG TRIALS
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether the alleged offenders had committed crimes against
peace, crimes of war and crimes against humanity and conspiracy under Article 6 of the
International Military Tribunal’s Charter.
Rules:
Nuremberg Trials are the series of trials held between 1945 to 1946 in which the 24
former Nazi leaders were tried under Article 4 as the criminals of war by the International
Military Tribunal for their role on Holocaust. As opined by Seltzer1, Holocaust has been
explained as the deliberate mass murder of approximately 6million Jews of Europe by the Nazi
officials before and during the World War II. Hence, to bring justice to these officials and their
atrocities to the victims, the United States, United Kingdom, France and Soviet Union formed a
Declaration at the Moscow Conference for the formation of European Advisory Commission,
which developed the Charter that led to the birth and formation of the International Military
Tribunal. The Charter is usually referred to as the Nuremberg Charter and was signed on 8th
August 1945, to stipulate that the crimes of the European Axis Powers were entitled to be tried
by the Tribunal. Article 6 of the Charter2 defined three types of crimes which are crimes against
humanity, waging war and crimes against peace. Article 8 of the Charter3 states that holding an
official position does not defend the crime committed by the person under the Charter. The
1 Seltzer, William. "Population statistics, the Holocaust, and the Nuremberg trials." Population and
Development Review 24.3 (1998): 511-552.
2 Treaty Series- United Nations: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/
Doc.2_Charter%20of%20IMT%201945.pdf
3 Treaty Series- United Nations: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/
Doc.2_Charter%20of%20IMT%201945.pdf

NUREMBERG TRIALS1
criminal procedure which was carried out was more definitive of civil law than the common law
and also that the panel of judges were formed to decide the case instead of the jury trial.
Article 4 of the Charter4 explains that the quorum of the Tribunal shall be maintained for
the continuity of the trial. Further, the Article provides for the selection of the President who
shall be selected by the members of the Tribunals before the beginning of the trial. However, the
rotation of the President shall be allowed for the subsequent trials and in case, the location of the
trial is one of the signatories to the Charter, then the representative of the location shall preside
the proceedings. Lastly, the Article laid down that the Tribunal shall decide trials by way of
majority voting and in case, the votes are equally divided, then the vote of the President shall be
final; subject to the decisions regarding convictions and sentences shall be affirmed only after the
favourable voting of not less than three votes from the members of the Tribunal.
Application:
In the given trial, the Tribunal was formed to try 24 prominent Nazi leaders who planned
and committed and were otherwise involved in the Holocaust and other crimes of war. There
were lot of difficulties which were faced during the trial. The most difficult part was that there
was no precedent for the trial of alleged international war criminals. The trial was executed to
bring justice to all responsible for the mass genocide of millions of European Jews in the name
of Holocaust. Although some accused confessed to their crimes, some alleged that they were
only following their official orders given to them from their top officials. However, the
formation and the intentionality of the Tribunal was always questioned and contrasted, but the
4 Treaty Series- United Nations: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/
Doc.2_Charter%20of%20IMT%201945.pdf

NUREMBERG TRIALS2
signatories were determined to punish them all for the atrocities that followed during the
Holocaust. Many officials fled Germany or committed suicide even before the capture. The
leader of the Nazi Government, Adolf Hitler, committed suicide during early 1945 to avoid
capture. Joseph Goebbels Hermann Goring, Josef Terboven are few of the officials who followed
the path of Hitler to avoid capture. However, others like Adolf Eichmann, Reinhard Heydrich
were captured and assassinated or apprehended by the partisans. The aim of the Tribunal and its
formation was to punish the Nazis for their atrocities. However, the death penalty was the least
of what they could have been punished. According to some scholars, the penalty served partial
purpose of the justice whereas some confer that the atrocities were too cruel to compete with any
punishment that could be inflicted on them.
In rendering the decisions of the trial, the Tribunal did not accept the defences presented
by the defendants. While few confessed to their actions, others contended that they were only
following the high official orders in their official capacity. On the other hand, the Tribunal
refused to accept the duty following contention for it had made them as the part of offenders
conspiring to wage war, or affect peace and humanity. The defence also contended that only a
state can be found guilty of waging war whereas as an individual, waging war against a
community or state is not possible. On the contrary, it was contended by the Tribunal that laws
and legal principles are breached and infringed only by individuals who act as the officials of the
state. Therefore, in order to maintain peace and principles of International Law, it is important to
identify such individuals who act under the face of the state and convict them for their actions
against the International Law. Lastly, it was contended by the defendants that the trial was ex
post facto which means that the trial is conducted on a retrospective action by the accused. In
other words, the actions for which the accused are alleged for the trial under the Tribunal were