Examining the Legality and Fairness of Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg Trials: The Legality of International Trial and Fairness of Nuremberg

The Nuremberg Trials seem like a possible vendetta to imprison those who disagree with the groups who won the Second World War. This is a feasible argument because at the trials there were twenty-two Nazis and no one else to be investigated. The goal of the trial was to set an example of these war criminals and to add a reason to not engage in unnecessary conflict. According to Dr. von Knieriem of the American Bar Association there was no standard international law that should have been upheld, rather, the defendants should have been held to their native countries own law. On October 1, 1946 the International Military Tribunal announced verdicts; three were

acquitted, four received prison sentences, three received life imprisonment, and twelve received the death penalty. Although the Nuremberg Trials set out against one party, the trials followed the legal regulations in place and allowed for progress to be made for international law.
The International Military Tribunal was an innovative organization who had the common goal of punishing war crimes, adding to the penalization of engaging in conflict, and to alter and set up International law.

The organization was highly effective in punishment but lacked in the other goals. Over half of the defendants were sentenced to death and all but three received some sort of punishment. That means that in this circumstance the punishment of war crimes had an eighty-six percent effectiveness rate. However, the reason to not engage in war and conflict did not last. Just a few years later there were multiple more conflicts. It is reasonable to believe that this would be because the countries involved in those conflicts did not suffer any of the consequences of the Nuremberg Trials. This lacks effectiveness. The International Military Tribunal needed to engage in full distain and not accept any sort of conflict no matter who was involved. Conflicts where the allies were involved were not tried which is hypocritical of the goal. International Law did not gain any massive or astounding changes, excluding the establishment of the United Nations, rather simple clarifications for what law would be upheld and what was

acceptable.
Legality of International Trial is a topic that is difficult to grasp, especially in this time period when the United Nations had not been established. For this reason the International Military Tribunal could get away with a large amount of reasoning and decisions without scrutiny because they were setting up new ideals and organizations. The trial was set to be international to reduce the skepticism around it. The tribunal also allowed for representation to come from four main countries with observations from many more so those in power could be held accountable for their decisions during the trial. These people who were selected were not there to challenge the ruling but rather affirm that proper actions were taken in the decision making process as well as the trials as a whole. The tribunal structured the court like the ones that they knew which is why it resembled an American court with the left and right sides and a bar. The tribunal followed the legal practices that were agreed upon and justified by current policy and beliefs in the global community.
The Nuremberg Trials had a massive impact on lives, some were lost and others changed forever. One goal was to seek justice for those who were affected by the actions of the upper level Nazis. Justice is objective and cannot be determined from one person to another. According to the court of law justice was achieved and the court did everything that they were capable of in order to achieve justice. New agreements also resulted from the International Military Tribunal. The largest and most notable would be the United Nations which is still arguably working out international law to this day. It is true that what was accomplished based on impact was large enough to overshadow the lack of achievements from the tribunal.
The trials began with the intent of prohibiting unnecessary international conflict by adding another penalty to the losing party. On top of retributions the losing country would also have to suffer the penalties of international law. The International Military Tribunal was set into place for the sole purpose of investigating international war crimes and imprisoning those at fault. The tribunal was highly successful in clarifying everything. The tribunal clarified everything from language to the unclear laws that were not entirely existent. The tribunal also was something new to civilization. The American Bar Association says that no organization has ever attempted a mass trial and execution by the orders of military with such little opportunity for defense. It was also new because it was four nations joining forces in order to punish another nation. The organization was a tentative agreement that originated when the allies were still at war. The goal was not to make a nation blameless, rather fix the lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal set into place the workings for the trial requesting judges to preside from the allied countries. There were sitting judges from Britain and the United States as well as prosecution from these countries as well. The judges were appointed by their government and tried to remain as impartial and unbiased as possible, though one admits it was quite difficult. The goal was to provide a fair trial against those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The American Bar Association observer set the scene as a technologically advanced and impressive situation. The council used new technologies so that everyone could understand. There was a wall of translators allowing for the trials to be understood in multiple languages by tiny boxes and headphones. The scene also resembled an American courtroom as far as the physical structure was concerned, except for one major part of the room where the twenty-two defendants sat surrounded by armed guards in special military uniforms. The scene was professional and structured, the technology was innovative, and the tribunal was unheard of but all for the betterment of society.
The American Bar Association and judges and justices who served in the Nuremberg Trial agree with the historical scholars who have studied the trials saying that the trials were legal on the basis of lack of regulation.

Today, there is more regulation and specific ways of handling situations like this. The trials accomplished so much in their impact on international law, however it lacked in its own goals. Justice was served as well as it could be by the courts. Though the trials moral obligation could be questioned, for the time in history it was indisputably legal. Finding a way to legally try the Nazi officials was imperative to the humanity of the men who fought and died as well as all of the victims of the

war.