60 years after the trials of the main German war criminals, the articles in this book attempt to assess the Nuremberg Trials from a historical and legal point of view, and to illustrate connections, contradictions and consequences. In view of constantly reoccurring reports of mass crimes from all over the world, we have only reached the halfway point in the quest for an effective system of international criminal justice. With the legacy of Nuremberg in mind, this volume is a contribution to the search for answers to questions of how the law can be applied effectively and those committing crimes against humanity be brought to justice for their actions.

This 2003 collection of essays is based on five lectures organized jointly by Matrix Chambers of human rights lawyers and the Wiener Library between April and June 2002. Presented by leading experts in the field, this fascinating collection of papers examines the evolution of international criminal justice from its post World War II origins at Nuremberg through to the concrete proliferation of courts and tribunals with international criminal law jurisdictions based at The Hague today. Original and provocative, the lectures provide various stimulating perspectives on the subject of international criminal law. Topics include its corporate and historical dimension as well as a discussion of the International Criminal Court Statute and the role of the national courts. The volume offers a challenging insight into the future of international criminal legal system. This is an intelligent and thought-provoking book, accessible to anyone interested in international criminal law, from specialists to non-specialists alike.

In this new collection of essays the editors assess the legacy of the Nuremberg Trial asking whether the Trial really did have a civilising influence or if it constituted little more than institutionalised vengeance. Three essays focus particularly on the historical context and involve rich analysis of, for example, the atmospherics of the Trial itself and the attitudes of German society at the time to the conduct of the Trial. The majority of the essays deal with the contemporary legacies of the Nuremberg Trial and attempt to assess the ongoing relevance of the Judgment itself and of the principles encapsulated in it. Some essays consider the importance of the principle of individual criminal responsibility under international law and argue that the international community has to some extent failed to fulfil the promise of Nuremberg in the decades since the Trial. Other essays focus on contemporary application of aspects of the substantive law of Nuremberg - particularly the international crime of aggression, the law of military occupation and the use of the crime of conspiracy as an alternative basis of criminal responsibility. The collection also includes essays analysing the nature and operation of a number of international criminal tribunals since Nuremberg including the permanent International Criminal Court. The final grouping of essays focus on the impact of the Nuremberg Trial on Australia examining, in particular, Australia's post-World War Two war crimes trials of Japanese defendants, Australia's extensive national case law on Article 1(F) of the Refugee Convention and Australia's national implementing legislation for the Rome Statute.

This book provides the first comprehensive legal analysis of the twelve war-crimes trials held in the American zone of occupation between 1946 and 1949, collectively known as the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT). The judgments these Tribunals produced have played a critical role in the development of international criminal law, particularly in terms of how courts currently understand genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The trials are of tremendous historical importance, because they provide a far more comprehensive picture of Nazi atrocities than the main Nuremberg Trial (IMT). The IMT focused exclusively on the 'major war criminals'-the Goerings, the Hesses, the Speers. The NMT, by contrast, prosecuted doctors, lawyers, judges, industrialists, bankers-the private citizens and lower-level functionaries whose willingness to take part in the destruction of millions of innocents manifested what Hannah Arendt famously called 'the banality of evil'. This book starts by tracing the history of the NMT. It then discusses the law and procedure applied by the NMT, with a focus on the important differences between Control Council Law No. 10 and the Nuremberg Charter and on the protection of the defendants' right to a fair trial. The third section, the heart of the book, provides a systematic analysis of the NMT's jurisprudence. It covers Law No. 10's core crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as well as the crimes of conspiracy and membership of a criminal organization. This section also analyzes the general principles of liability that the Tribunals applied and on the defenses they did -and did not- recognize. The final section of the book deals with the aftermath of the trials and their historical legacy.

Here is a gripping account of the major postwar trial of the Nazi hierarchy in World War II. The Nuremberg Trial brilliantly recreates the trial proceedings and offers a reasoned, often profound examination of the processes that created international law. From the whimpering of Kaltenbrunner and Ribbentrop on the stand to the icy coolness of Goering, each participant is vividly drawn. Includes twenty-four photographs of the key players as well as extensive references, sources, biographies, and an index.

The Nuremberg Trials (IMT), most notable for their aim to bring perpetrators of Nazi war crimes to justice in the wake of World War II, paved the way for global conversations about genocide, justice, and human rights that continue to this day. As Francine Hirsch reveals in this new history of the trials, a central part of the story has been ignored or forgotten: the critical role the Soviet Union played in making them happen in the first place. While there were practical reasons for this omission--until recently, critical Soviet documents about Nuremberg were buried in the former Soviet archives, and even Russian researchers had limited access--Hirsch shows that there were political reasons as well. The Soviet Union was regarded by its wartime Allies not just as a fellow victor but a rival, and it was not in the interests of the Western powers to highlight the Soviet contribution to postwar justice. Stalin's Show Trials of the 1930s had both provided a model for Nuremberg and made a mockery of it, undermining any pretense of fairness and justice. Further complicating matters was the fact that the Soviets had allied with the Nazis before being invaded by them. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 hung over the courtroom, as did the fact that the everyone knew that the Soviet prosecution had presented the court with falsified evidence about the Katyn massacre of Polish officers, attempting to pin one of their own major war crimes on the Nazis. For lead American prosecutor Robert Jackson and his colleagues, focusing too much on the Soviet role in the trials threatened the overall credibility of the IMT and possibly even the collective memory of the war. Soviet Justice at Nuremberg illuminates the ironies of Stalin's henchmen presiding in moral judgment over the Nazis. In effect, the Nazis had learned mass-suppression and mass-murder techniques from the Soviets, their former allies, and now the latter were judging them for crimes they had themselves committed. Yet the Soviets had borne the brunt of the fighting--and the losses--in World War II, and this gave them undeniable authority. Moreover, Soviet jurists were the first to conceive of a legal framework for viewing war as a crime, and without that framework the IMT would have had no basis. In short, there would be no denying their place at the tribunal, nor their determination to make the most of it. Illuminating the shifting relationships between the four countries involved (the U.S., Great Britain, France, and the U.S.S.R.) Hirsch's book shows how each was not just facing off against the Nazi defendants, but against each other and offers a new history of Nuremberg.

At the end of World War II the Allies faced a threefold challenge: how to punish perpetrators of appalling crimes for which the categories of 'genocide' and 'crimes against humanity' had to be coined; how to explain that these had been committed by Germany, of all nations; and how to reform Germans. The Allied answer to this conundrum was the application of historical reasoning to legal procedure. In the thirteen Nuremberg trials held between 1945 and 1949, and in corresponding cases elsewhere, a concerted effort was made to punish key perpetrators while at the same time providing a complex analysis of the Nazi state and German history. Building on a long debate about Germany's divergence from a presumed Western path of development, Allied prosecutors sketched a historical trajectory which had led Germany to betray the Western model. Historical reasoning both accounted for the moral breakdown of a 'civilised' nation and rendered plausible arguments that this had indeed been a collective failure rather than one of a small criminal clique. The prosecutors therefore carefully laid out how institutions such as private enterprise, academic science, the military, or bureaucracy, which looked ostensibly similar to their opposite numbers in the Allied nations, had been corrupted in Germany even before Hitler's rise to power. While the argument, depending on individual protagonists, subject matters, and contexts, met with uneven success in court, it offered a final twist which was of obvious appeal in the Cold War to come: if Germany had lost its way, it could still be brought back into the Western fold. The first comprehensive study of the Nuremberg trials, The Betrayal thus also explores how history underpins transitional trials as we encounter them in today's courtrooms from Arusha to The Hague.

For decades the history of the US Military Tribunals at Nuremberg (NMT) has been eclipsed by the first Nuremberg trial—the International Military Tribunal or IMT. The dominant interpretation—neatly summarized in the ubiquitous formula of “Subsequent Trials”—ignores the unique historical and legal character of the NMT trials, which differed significantly from that of their predecessor. The NMT trials marked a decisive shift both in terms of analysis of the Third Reich and conceptualization of international criminal law. This volume is the first comprehensive examination of the NMT and brings together diverse perspectives from the fields of law, history, and political science, exploring the genesis, impact, and legacy of the twelve Military Tribunals held at Nuremberg between 1946 and 1949.

The proper construction of co-perpetration responsibility in international criminal law has become one of the most enduring controversies in this field, with the UN Tribunals endorsing the theory of joint criminal enterprise, and the International Criminal Court adopting the alternative joint control over the crime theory to define this mode of liability. This book seeks to reconcile the ICTY/R’s and ICC’s jurisprudence by providing a definition of co-perpetration that could be uniformly applied in the two justice models that these institutions represent: the ad hoc- and the treaty-based model. An evaluation framework is adopted, pursuant to which the origins, merits and deficiencies of the said competing theories are critically assessed, and a refined legal framework of co-perpetration responsibility is proposed.