Kirsten Sellars, 'Imperfect Justice at Nuremberg and Tokyo', European Journal of International Law 21 (2010), 1085-1102. (original) (raw)
2010, European Journal of International Law
When the international criminal tribunals were convened in Nuremberg and Tokyo in the mid-1940s, the response from lawyers was mixed. Some believed that the Second World War was an exceptional event requiring special legal remedies, and commended the tribunals for advancing international law. Others condemned them for their legal shortcomings and maintained that some of the charges were retroactive and selectively applied. Since then, successive generations of commentators have interpreted the tribunals in their own ways, shaped by the conflicts and political concerns of their own times. The past two decades have seen the establishment of new international courts, and an accompanying revival of interest in their predecessors at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Recent commentaries have analysed the founding documents, the choice of defendants, the handling of the charges, the conduct of the casesand also the legal and political legacies of the tribunals. They demonstrate that long-standing disagreements over antecedents, aims and outcomes have still not been settled, and that the problems inherent in some of the original charges have still not been solved, despite the appearance of similar charges within the remit of the International Criminal Court today.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
The Nuremberg Tribunal v. The Tokyo Tribunal: Designs, Staffs, and Operations
2010
This article is published by invitation in a special symposium issue of the John Marshall Law Review entitled “International Law in the 21st Century: The Law and Politics of the International Criminal Court.” The article compares the International Military Tribunal (also known as the Nuremberg Tribunal) with the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (also known as the Tokyo Tribunal), the two ad hoc international war crimes tribunals the Allies established after World War II to prosecute suspected atrocity perpetrators from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, respectively. The article examines these two tribunals’ similarities and differences, especially as they relate to the tribunals’ designs, staffs, and operations. The article concludes by suggesting that future research should consider whether and, if so, how similarities and differences between the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals affected their results, including their durations and judgments.
"The Nuremberg Trials constituted a historic moment and a landmark in the development of international criminal law not just because of its primitive character but also its reflections on the creation of modern international criminal law. They gave rise to a new system of international criminal justice which includes national courts, ad hoc tribunals, mixed tribunals and finally the International Criminal Court. All of these institutions are rooted in Nuremberg. This article contends that, with its existence and principles the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg has a great importance in creation of contemporary international criminal law. Keywords International Criminal Law, International Criminal Justice, The Individual Criminal Responsibility, The Nuremberg Trials , The International Criminal Court, The Rome Statute, Military Tribunals, Ad Hoc Tribunals, The Nuremberg Principles, War Crimes. "
The International Military Tribunal, which took place in Nuremberg, Germany, following World War II, was a significant event in the history of international law. Its primary aim was to prosecute high-ranking Nazi officials for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. However, the tribunal was heavily criticized at the time and in the years since its conclusion. One major criticism was that the tribunal applied international law retroactively, holding the defendants accountable for crimes that were not illegal at the time they were committed. Another criticism was that the tribunal was biased in favor of the Allied powers and did not include representatives from the Axis powers. Some also criticized the tribunal for focusing solely on the actions of the defeated Axis powers while ignoring similar actions by the Allied powers. Moreover, some critics argued that the tribunal failed to uphold basic principles of fairness, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. The tribunal was also accused of being driven by revenge rather than justice, leading some to label it a show trial. Nevertheless, the International Military Tribunal established critical legal precedents and served as the foundation for future international criminal tribunals. Its legacy remains a subject of debate, with some seeing it as a crucial step in holding leaders accountable for international crimes, while others view it as a flawed and politically motivated exercise in retribution. This essay will evaluate the criticisms of the International Military Tribunals on the prosecution of war crimes after World War II, weigh it against its achievements and the ways in which both have advanced the field of international law, lastly it will explore how the perpetrators of war crimes were brought to justice.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.