After World War II, the Allied Forces were determined to create a positive, friendly relationship with Germany, to avoid yet another world war. However, that did not mean that the Germans could get away with the atrocious crimes committed during the course of the war. The Nuremberg Trials were the solution to this problem. The Nuremberg Trials were a way for the Allies to fairly hold Nazi war criminals accountable for their crimes. The trials have been met with criticism by some scholars, however, regardless of what the critics say, these trials have impacted the world in a positive way.
“The Nuremberg Trials were a series of 13 trials carried out in Nuremberg, Germany between 1945 and 1949” (Nuremberg Trials). The trials targeted the aggressive war the Nazis begin in addition to their horrific crimes committed during the Holocaust. It was ultimately the United States that persuaded the Allied Powers to conduct a trial rather than a summary execution, or an execution without a prior trial (Nuremberg Trials). Conducting a trial required that physical documentation be provided, and this documentation helped to “prevent later accusations that the defendants had been condemned without evidence” (Nuremberg Trials).
There was not a precedent for an international trial like this. The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal was issued in August of 1948, and established the three categories of crime that defendants would be charged with during the trials: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (Nuremberg Trials). The most notable of the 13 Nuremberg Trials is the Trial of Major War Criminals, which lasted from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946 (Nuremberg Trials). In this trial, 24 men were charged with one or more of the crimes mentioned (Cassese et al. 27), and all but three of the defendants were found guilty of at least one crime.
The additional 12 trials are known collectively as the “Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings” and took place from December 1946 to April 1949 (Nuremberg Trials). These subsequent trials were administered by the United States, which was met with some criticism. Some scholars claimed that these trials “were American courts without any jurisdiction founded in international law” (Doman 2), however, this is not true due to Control Council Law No. 10. Law No. 10 defined the international authority that the judges sitting on the case possessed (Doman 2). This concern was addressed directly during the third subsequent trial, the Judges’ Trial. The Tribunal stated that while they were composed of American judges, they were “sitting by virtue of international authority, and can carry… only the broad principles of justice and fair play” (Doman 2). The Subsequent Trials resulted in 185 men being indicted for their crimes, with 12 men receiving the death sentence, eight men receiving life in prison, and 77 other men receiving varying prison sentences (Nuremberg Trials).
Although many scholars concentrate on the faults of the Nuremberg Trials, the trials provided an important precedent for future international trials such as those held in Yugoslavia in 1993 and Rwanda in 1994. Along with providing a precedent for international trials, a convention came as a result of the Nuremberg Trials, the United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948 (Nuremberg Trials). Additionally, the Declaration of Human Rights was written in 1948 as a direct response to the Nuremberg Trials (Nuremberg Trials) and the Nuremberg Code “grew out of the [Doctors’] trial itself” (Shuster 1) and is now regarded as “the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research” (Shuster 1).
The Nuremberg Trials became an example for the international trials in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, proving monumental to their success. The trials conducted for the war crimes in these two countries were “buil[t] on the foundation of Nuremberg” (Stover 1). “In May 1993, the [UN] Security Council established an ad hoc International Tribunal for… Yugoslavia, followed by the establishment of a similar International Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994” (Akhavan 1). These Tribunals were formed to “prosecute war crimes and acts of genocide” (Stover 1) in each country, and they were closely modeled after the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg.
The United Nations Genocide Convention also resulted from the Nuremberg Trials. Prior to the trials, the term genocide was not commonly used. Dr. Raphael Lemkin, the man who originated the term ‘genocide,’ was a lawyer who helped to form the prosecution at Nuremberg and is “also credited as the originator of the principle the Nazi organizations and groups be termed criminal and that members of the groups… be prosecuted” (Milliren 293). Lempkin found that because of the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal, only crimes committed during the course of the war could be prosecuted, meaning that “all crimes of genocide committed by the Nazis before the outbreak of the war” (Milliren 293) could not be prosecuted.
The United Nations Genocide Convention was created to make genocide a crime of international law, even in times of peace (Milliren 293). Three specific types of genocide were defined in the convention: physical, biological, and cultural (Milliren 294). Physical genocide refers to the actual act of murder; biological genocide refers to delayed action of eliminating a group (specifically sterilization); and cultural genocide refers to eliminating characteristics of a group. The convention was adopted on December 9, 1948 and it “signifie[d] that the moral import of genocide [had] been wholeheartedly accepted in principle” (Milliren 296). This adoption is slightly different than what was established in the Nuremberg Trials, and that has to do with the phrase ‘in times of peace.’ As previously mentioned, only the crimes committed during the actual war were prosecuted during the trials and everything beforehand was ignored. The addition of the phrase ‘in times of peace’ makes all forms of genocide illegal, not just genocidal acts committed during times of war.
After World War II and all the devastation that came with it, nations were more willing to protect human rights (Robinson 27). “The Universal Declaration was the first international agreement aimed at the improvement of human rights for all people” (Robinson 27) making all humans equal. This declaration was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, just one day after the United Nations Genocide Convention was adopted. The Declaration includes 30 articles, each stating a different basic right that all humans have. Article One states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 426). This Declaration was written in response to the prisoners held in concentration and death camps during the war, and this is clearly stated in the preamble. “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 426). These humans were treated worse than beasts, and had all of their rights and material possessions taken away from them on the basis of what they believed in. This Declaration was put into place to ensure that a tragedy such as the Holocaust would never happen again (although we see genocide in the 1990’s in Yugoslavia and Rwanda).
Quite possibly the most important result of the Nuremberg Trials is the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code was developed by the Tribunals that sat on the Doctors’ Trial, lasting from December 1946 to July 1947 (Shuster, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code 2). The code was written in August 1947 and “served a a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research” (Shuster, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code 1). As of 2018, the Nuremberg Code has not been formally adopted by any nation, however, parts of the code have influenced many areas of international law, especially pertaining to global human rights laws and medical ethics (Shuster, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code 4).
Prior to the development of the Nuremberg Code, physicians followed Hippocratic ethics, which assumed that a physician would feel obligated to “safeguard the life and welfare of patient-subjects” (Shuster, The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic Ethics and Human Rights 1) and make all decisions in the patient’s best interest. Hippocratic ethics only applied to regular treatments and not to medical research experiments. This allowed for the Nazis to conduct deadly medical experiments, while still technically following the Hippocratic ethics.
The Nuremberg Code helps to protect the subjects of medical experiments, with principle one stating that “the voluntary consent of a human subject is absolutely essential,” (Shuster, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code 1). This means that prior to the start of the experiment, the patient must receive all information regarding the test, including all possible risks, in order to make an informed decision on whether or not they will participate. The concept of informed consent was new in the medical community, and has since been “universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article Seven of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (Shuster, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code 4). Principle nine was also a unprecedented concept, allowing for the patient to “actively protect themselves” and withdraw from the experiment if they were physically or mentally unable to continue (Shuster, Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code 1). Under the Hippocratic ethics, withdrawal was not permitted. Once the patient consented to treatment by a physician, they were meant to follow through with the entire treatment, regardless of the outcome.
While conducting research about the Nuremberg Trials, it was surprising to see how negatively they are received by the majority of scholars. Many felt that the trials were executed poorly, and that the defendants should have been tried under national law (Doman 2). These are not valid arguments, first, because a trial of this kind had never been organized before, so there was nothing to base it off of. Second, this became an international matter immediately when Germany invaded Poland, so there would be no reason for this to fall under national law.
The Nuremberg Trials have impacted the world in a positive way, mainly because of their impact on international law. The concept of “crimes against humanity” was created and defined in Article Six of the London Charter of the Nuremberg Trials, with the specific crimes being murder, extermination, enslavement, and deportation (Stover 3). The trials also introduced the idea that “individuals and not society as a whole should be held accountable for crimes committed in war” (Stover 3). Holding the individual accountable for war crimes was also relevant in possibly the most controversial institution from the Nuremberg Trials, the idea of ‘crime against peace.’ Crime against peace stated that expansionist wars were illegal, and those who started an aggressive war would be held criminally accountable for the war itself and the results (Stover 3).
The Nuremberg Trials have further hindered the ability to have a total war in the modern era because it has resulted in the increased protection of civilians, while also labeling aggressive war as illegal and creating new social norms. Due to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all people have basic human rights, and these rights do not include being a target in war. Targeting civilians in war is now illegal and very few states are willing to defy the rules of engagement and go against basic human rights. This is also where we see norms come in – few nations are willing to break international law, and even fewer are willing to go against social norms and target civilians anyways.
By making aggressive wars illegal, the Nuremberg Trials also prevented total war since nations are no longer able to completely mobilize their military. Complete mobilization makes a state an aggressive power, and goes against social norms, and very few states are willing to do this. The resulting limited power from the Nuremberg Trials partnered with the new development of nuclear weapons has effectively prevented any total war since the end of World War II.
The Nuremberg Trials were unprecedented, and due to that fact alone, it is clear that they did exactly what they were meant to do: fairly judge Nazi war criminals based on their crimes during World War II. While there were some mistakes made, the positive impact they had on the world outweighs the negative. The Nuremberg Trials provided a gateway to international laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Genocide Convention, while also providing a code of medical ethics, the Nuremberg Code. Critics may talk poorly about the trials today, however, they continue to positively impact the world.
Works Cited
Akhavan, Payam. “The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: The Politics and Pragmatics of Punishment.” The American Journal of International Law (1996): 1-10.
Cassese, Antonio, et al. International Criminal Law: Cases and Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2011.
Doman, Nicholas R. “The Nuremberg Trials Revisited.” 47.3 (1961): 260-264.
Milliren, Mariam L. “The U.N. Convention on Genocide.” World Affairs (1947): 293-296.
Nuremberg Trials. 29 January 2010. A&E Television Networks. 19 November 2018. <https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials>.
Robinson, Mary. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Hope and History.” Health and Human Rights (1998): 27-29.
Shuster, Evelyne. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.” The New England Journal of Medicine (1997): 1-5.
—. “The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic Ethics and Human Rights.” The Lancet (1998): 1-4.
Stover, Eric. “In the Shadow of Nuremberg: Pursuing War Criminals in the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.” Medicine & Global Survival II.3 (1995): 1-7.
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights .” Gregorianum (1979): 425-430.