Origin
of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
By January Godkin
During
the course of World War II multiple atrocities were committed by
the German army that, when discovered, shocked the world. The governments
of the allied forces that defeated the Nazis were divided on the
proper approach to dealing with the leaders of the army and government
of Germany. A compromise was reached in the creation of the International
Military Tribunal. The United States, United Kingdom, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, and France decided to prosecute, in
a court of law, Nazi offenders in a court to be set at Nuremberg,
Germany, former center for Nazi politics. The 24 defendants were,
for the most part, well known Nazi officials and military leaders
representing the major branches of the administration. The defendants
included prisoners held by each of the four nations. Only 21 defendants
made it to the trial ? two committed suicide and one was thought
to be dead but was tried in absentia just in case he should ever
surface.
The
Nuremberg Trials, as they would come to be known, were based on
the premise of international law. The London Charter, the document
which created the International Military Tribunal, set out the four
crimes that defendants would be charged with the following: Conspiracy
to commit aggressive war, Crimes against Peace, War crimes, and
Crimes against humanity (such as the extermination camps). The
court was made up of representatives of each of the four countries
and presided over by an elected President. Each country took charge
of prosecuting the defendants on one of the four counts. The U.S.
was in charge of presenting the most difficult count to prove:
the charge of conspiracy to commit war before the war started.
The British took control of the crimes against peace charge, while
the French and the Soviets jointly presented the West-East sides
of the remaining two counts.
The
controversial trial, the first to ever mass-prosecute people who
could claim to simply have followed orders, set a precedent for
the use of international law to punish those who commit atrocities
in the name of nationalism. The defendants were punished with varying
in sentences. Eleven defendants received the death penalty, eight
were sentenced to long prison terms, and three were acquitted of
the charges against them.
The legacy of the trial is extremely important to the current attempts
to establish an International Criminal Court. The legacy of Nuremberg,
however imperfect the trial and the ideals behind may have been,
remains unfulfilled. The prosecution of war crimes in an international
court has been nonexistent for most of the half-century since the
Nuremberg Trials. While the UN International Criminal Tribunals
for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, have begun to proceed with
the ideals set out at Nuremberg in their prosecution of war criminals,
there is still much that is needed. One hundred and twenty nations
have signed a treaty agreeing to the creation of an International
Criminal Court. Only seven nations voted against creating a permanent
International Criminal Court, among them the United States, Yemen,
Qatar, Libya, Iraq and China. The establishment of the ICC is essential
to creating and maintaining a defined set of rules and laws to regulate
the behavior of governments and individuals around the world.
|
