The nuremberg justice trial 1947 vengeance of the victors

Although the reasons differ, all opinions described above share the same point of view, which is that the written rules set out in Hague Convention No.

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The validity of Control Council Law No. Their statements in the judgment represented a critical and careful analysis of this issue based on legal theory rather than on personal feelings or emotions. Within their statements one is not able to find obviously subjective opinions about Nazis and Nazi Germany. By replacing the words Germany and Germans with other names of nations and nationals, the judgment could just as well have been made for other countries where a similar post-war situation could have occurred.

In the judgment,. The judgment referred to the Berlin Declaration from 5 June and explained The unconditional surrender of Germany took place on 8 May The surrender was preceded by the complete disintegration of the central government and was followed by the complete occupation of all of Germany. There were no opposing German forces in the field; the officials who during the war had exercised the powers of the Reich Government were either dead, in prison, or in hiding.

Consequently, the Tribunal then drew a conclusion that Germany had lost its sovereignty to the Allies because, after the complete disintegration of the German Government followed by the unconditional surrender of the German armed forces and the occupation of the German territory, there was an inevitable necessity for the Allies to exercise supreme governmental powers not only for administrative but, in the first place, also for humanitarian reasons.

In the judgment it is stated as follows It is this fact of the complete disintegration of the government in Germany, followed by unconditional surrender and by occupation of the territory, which explains and justifies the assumption and exercise of supreme governmental powers by the Allies.

The same fact distinguishes the present occupation of Germany from the type of occupation which occurs when, in the course of actual warfare, an invading army enters and occupies the territory of another state, whose government is still in existence and is in receipt of international recognition, and whose armies, with those of its allies, are still in the field.

In the latter case, the occupying power is subject to the limitations imposed upon it by the Hague Convention and by the laws and customs of war. In the former case the occupation of Germany the Allied Powers were not subject to. By reason of the complete breakdown of government, industry, agriculture, and supply, they were under an imperative humanitarian duty of far wider scope to reorganize government and industry and to foster local democratic governmental agencies throughout the territory.

However, the Tribunal seemed to be inconsistent in its explanation. In the judgment, the Tribunal contradicted itself within different sections. At one place it is stated International law is not the product of statute for the simple reason that there is as yet no world authority empowered to enact statutes of universal application.

International law is the product of multipartite treaties, conventions, judicial decisions and customs which have received international acceptance or acquiescence. This means that, in the view of the Tribunal, there has never been an international legislature. Yet, at another place, the judgment stated as follows: Law 10 are the products of legislative action by an international authority, it follows of necessity that there is no national constitution of any one state which could be invoked to invalidate the substantive provisions of such international legislation.

Although the judgment additionally explained that Control Council Law No. Eventually, at still another place, the judgment stated In its aspect as a statute defining crime and providing punishment the limited purpose of C. Law 10 is clearly set forth. It is an exercise of.

In this sense, a global justice argument which is based on restoring background conditions of justice is different from both the one of global egalitarians, who consider. Such a situation of an overabundance and poor placement of jus- tices has long been recognized as one of the major faults of this court system, and was.

A Court should also be given the discretionary power to order that any assets acquired during the marriage by the joint efforts of the husband and wife be.

Associations relevant for the associational conception of justice are those that respect the fundamental moral rights of members and nonmembers and the social rules of justice.

In ruling on the request, the Pre-Trial Chamber acknowledged that Sudan was not a State party, but concluded that Article 12 2 , which sets out the circumstances in which. This paper presents a follow-up study on reduction in criminal recidivism by inmates treated in Oregon's Cornerstone Program.. Principles of effective treatment are presented. The Plaintiff was then cross-examined on his affidavit evidence, and the court heard argument from both counsel on an appropriate award of damages in the circumstances of this case..

For the management, to get rid of an unproductive, undesirable and erring employee, shall have to initiate disciplinary action against him as per the provisions.

Show more Page. Download now Page. In memory of the victims of the German judiciary between and Laws and Customs of War on Land In his opening statement for the prosecution, Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Telford Taylor stated This case is unusual in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law.

Chapter II analyses the legal background of the trial by examining the following issues: Who had the legal and political power in Germany at the time of the trial? Was the trial legitimated by existing international law?

Why did a German court not deal with this case? Why did the Tribunal consist only of judges from the United States? Was there a moral necessity for such a trial? Were the deciding judges of the Tribunal independent from US post-war politics?

What were the criteria for selecting the defendants? Chapter IV looks at the trial proceedings and focuses on the following questions: Were the charges, especially the count of crimes against humanity, compatible with existing rules of criminal law?

Was the tu qouque argument a valid argument used by the defence? Did the defendants receive a fair hearing? The Commission was finally established in October , but it was not more than a weak evidence-collecting body that left investigations to its member states.

In the end, they declared the following The United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union have received from many quarters evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are being perpetrated by the Hitlerite forces in the many countries they have overrun and from which they are now being steadily expelled.

The author refers to the Quebec Conference held in September , but this is obviously a typo as no conference was held in Quebec at the time. General Nikitchenko, who later became one of the judges of the International Military Tribunal in the trial against the major war criminals, stated The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established.

Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; c Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Furthermore, the Charter explained the responsibility of individuals in relation to these crimes Article 6. In the Charter this is stated as follows Article 9.

At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare in connection with any act of 45 Ibid, arts Article III sections 1 and 2 read as follows 1. Each occupying authority, within its Zone of occupation, a shall have the right to cause persons within such Zone suspected of having committed a crime, including those charged with crime by one of the United Nations, to be arrested Nothing herein is intended to, or shall impair or limit the jurisdiction or power of any court or tribunal now or hereafter established in any Zone by the 55 Control Council Law No.

Atrocities or offences against persons or property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not 58 Ibid, art I. There it said The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the establishment of military tribunals which shall have power to try and punish persons charged with offenses recognized as crimes in Article II of Control Council Law No.

IV Laws and Customs of War on Land The international conferences of and in The Hague in the Netherlands established rules of warfare between the signatory nations. IV, it becomes obvious that only belligerent 83 Ibid, Annex art US Military Tribunal III referred to this statement and concluded as follows: 91 The clear implication from the foregoing is that the Rules of Land Warfare apply to the conduct of a belligerent in occupied territory so long as there is an army in the field attempting to restore the country to its true owner, but that those rules do not apply when belligerency is ended, there is no longer an army in the field, and, as in the case of Germany, subjugation has occurred by virtue of military conquest.

In the judgment, 93 Baestlein, above n 12, 9. The judgment referred to the Berlin Declaration from 5 June and explained The unconditional surrender of Germany took place on 8 May In the judgment it is stated as follows It is this fact of the complete disintegration of the government in Germany, followed by unconditional surrender and by occupation of the territory, which explains and justifies the assumption and exercise of supreme governmental powers by the Allies.

In the former case the occupation of Germany the Allied Powers were not subject to 96 Ibid, At one place it is stated International law is not the product of statute for the simple reason that there is as yet no world authority empowered to enact statutes of universal application.

Eventually, at still another place, the judgment stated In its aspect as a statute defining crime and providing punishment the limited purpose of C. It is an exercise of 98 Ibid, Read more. Figure Updating References Updating Download PDF - Page - 2. Related documents.

Justice Court Reform in Montana. The International Court of Justice. Nuremberg and American Justice. Above photo: Nuremberg trials from RiaNovosti.

On the surface, The Nuremberg Tribunals were a court assembled by the victors which prosecuted the losers. It is also true Axis war criminals were tried though Allied war criminals were not. But there was a greater concern at the time about stopping wars of aggression than prosecuting individual war criminals, since no one thought the world could survive one more world war. The intent was not retribution but to find a new way forward. With Nuremberg the victors turned away from the accepted vindictive punishment of the vanquished.

Given the wanton killing on the Eastern Front experienced by the Russians, it is easy to understand how he considered this to be appropriate. Churchill countered that executing the top 5, would be enough blood to assure it would not happen again.

The victorious powers instead set a new path, one of criminal trials, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals. The experiment provided that each defendant be indicted, have the right to a defense before a court, similar to a civilian court. Date: Rights: No known rights restrictions other than copyright. Following the first trial against the remaining Nazi leaders before the Allied International Military Tribunal in , the United States initiated 12 subsequent proceedings against leading members of all areas of Germany's society.

Organised and held under the aegis of the United States as one of the war's victors, the trials were seen by many as simple acts of vengeance, hidden behind a smokescreen of legality.

Therefore, especially in post-war Germany, the trials were often described as victor's justice. Yet, besides investigations relating to specific aspects of this allegation, a profound analysis of this issue has not been done for the Justice Trial. This study aims to help in closing this gap. Focussing on the issue of victor's justice, the work analyses and evaluates all stages of the Justice Trial, from its legal basis, to the planning and preparation, to the proceedings and judgments, to the enforcement of the sentences after the trial.

In the end, it is concluded that only two aspects, the violation of the principle of separation of powers and the restriction to initiate trials only against German nationals, can be seen as examples of victor's justice.