Creation of the court

At the meetings in Tehran (1943), Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945), the three major wartime powers USA, USSR and Britain
agreed on the format to punish those responsible for war-crimes during World War II. France was also awarded a place on
the tribunal.

The legal basis for the trial was established by the 'London Charter', issued on August 8, 1945, which restricted the
trial to "trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries". Thus, accusations of Allied
war crimes could not be tried. Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were
tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that by
the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control
Council which having sovereign power over Germany could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of
war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took
place before the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939.


 The validity of the court

    * The defendants were not allowed to appeal or affect the selection of judges. Some people argue that, because the 
judges were appointed by the victors, the Tribunal was not impartial and could not be regarded as a court in the true 
sense. A.L. Goodheart, Professor at Oxford, opposed this view, writing:

        "Attractive as this argument may sound in theory, it ignores the fact that it runs counter to the administration 
of law in every country. If it were true then no spy could be given a legal trial, because his case is always heard by 
judges representing the enemy country. Yet no one has ever argued that in such cases it was necessary to call on neutral 
judges. The prisoner has the right to demand that his judges shall be fair, but not that they shall be neutral. As Lord 
Writ has pointed out, the same principle is applicable to ordinary criminal law because 'a burglar cannot complain that 
he is being tried by a jury of honest citizens." -- The Legality of the Nuremberg Trials, Juridical Review, April 1946

    * The main Soviet judge, Nikitchenko, had taken part in Stalin's show trials of 1936-1938, something which in later 
years may have damaged the credibility of the Nuremberg trials.

    * The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the indictments were created ex post facto and were 
not based on any nation's law; the tu quoque defense was removed; and the entire spirit of the assembly was "victor's 
justice".

    * There were no trials for alleged war crimes of the allied countries. These included targeting of civilians (which 
was already defined as a war crime in international law) such as in the fire-bombings of Dresden and of Tokyo, 
unrestricted warfare in the Pacific, attacking submarines displaying Red Cross flags in the Laconia incident, and 
mistreatment of prisoners of war.

All this did little to help the credibility of trials. But the spirit of the time was well reflected at Nuremberg - a 
long, brutal and extraordinarily costly war had been fought and the surviving leaders of the losing side could not 
expect to simply walk away from the disaster they had created.



"Simas J" <simasj@gmail.com> wrote in message news:15s4969aqp76bgdj7ingd13h6qp465sqlr@4ax.com...
> Sveiki,
>
> kazkaip siandien beskaitydamasinterneto komentarus (tarp ju kaip zinia
> daug atvirai antisemitiniu), nuklydau i wikipedia puslapi
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann
>
> kuriame rasoma apie "holokausto architekta" Adolfa Eichmana. Vienas
> sakinys, kuris man uzkliuvo siame puslapyje:
>
> The legal basis of the charges against Eichmann was the 1950 "Nazi and
> Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law"
>
> Kiek mano teisines zinios leidzia suvokti, negalima zmogaus teisti ir
> bausme skirti pagal istatyma,  kuris buvo priimtas po nusikaltimo
> padarymo. Tad klausimas:  kokiu pagrindu buvo teisiami ir nubausti
> naciu vadovai?
>
> Aplamai, kaip as suprantu, jei iki II pasaulio karo ir buvo
> pasirasytos kokios nors tarptautines sutartys (apie zmogaus teises ar
> kazkas panasaus) tai jose tikrai nebuvo numatytos bausmes uz tu
> sutarciu nesilaikyma. Kaip suprantu tai turetu buti atskirai
> kiekvienos valstybes jurisdikcija kokias bausmes skirti uz siu
> sutarciu pazeidimus. Jei nacistineje Vokietijoje nebuvo numatyta tokiu
> bausmiu, tai visa naciu veikla juridiskai lyg ir turetu buti legali.
> Kokiu pagrindu tada buvo baudziami naciai Niurnberge? Ir kaip teisejai
> parinkdavo bausmes? tiesiog taip "is lubu" sugalvodavo - ta pakarti,
> tam xx metu sedeti?
>
> Dekoju uz jei kas nepatinges pakomentuoti ir atsiprasau tu, kuriems
> atrodo kad visiskai nusisneku... :)
>
> Simas.
>