What was addressed at the nuremberg trials

There shall be established after consultation with the Control Council for Germany an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as members of the organizations or groups or in both capacities.

Article 2. The constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the International Military Tribunal shall be those set in the Charter annexed to this Agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part of this Agreement. Article 3. Each of the signatories shall take the necessary steps to make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International Military Tribunal.

The signatories shall also use their best endeavors to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war criminals as are not in the territories of any of the signatories. Article 4. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the provisions established by the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war criminals to the countries where they committed their crimes.

Article 5. Any government of the United Nations may adhere to this agreement by notice given through the diplomatic channel to the Government of the United Kingdom, who shall inform the other signatory and adhering governments of each such adherence. Article 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the jurisdiction or the powers of any national or occupation court established or to be established in any allied territory or in Germany for the trial of war criminals.

Article 7. Such termination shall not prejudice any proceedings already taken or any findings already made in pursuance of this Agreement. Only four categories of crimes were to be punished:. Conspiracy conspiring to engage in the other three counts , Crimes Against Peace planning, preparing and waging aggressive war , War Crimes condemned in Hague Conventions of and and Crimes Against Humanity such as genocide , which by their magnitude, shock the conscience of humankind.

Each provision of the articles was carefully considered in order to reach an accord that seemed fair and acceptable to the four partners representing the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. On the eight day of August , the Charter was signed and the first International Military Tribunal in the history of mankind was thereby inaugurated. A Chief Prosecutor had been appointed for each of the four victorious powers. Designated by President Harry S. Truman as U.

To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. From November 20, , until August 31, , all sessions of the tribunal were held in Nuremberg under the presidency of Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence. In its comprehensive judgment, the Tribunal traced the history of international criminal law and the growing recognition in treaties, conventions and declarations, that aggressive war was an illegal act for which even a head of state could be brought to account.

There was no longer anything ex facto about such a charge. Leaders who deliberately attacked neighboring states without cause must have know that their deeds were prohibited and it would be unjust to allow them to escape merely because no one had been charged with that offense in the past.

The evidence, based in large part on captured German records, was overwhelming that crimes of the greatest cruelty and horror had been systematically committed pursuant to official policy. Regarding Crimes Against Humanity such as extermination and enslavement of civilian populations on political, racial or religious grounds , the law took another step forward on behalf of humankind - a step that was long overdue.

The findings and judgment of the IMT helped to usher in a new era for the legal protection of fundamental human rights. Other defendants were hanged or sentenced to long prison terms. Some were acquitted and released. They have become expressions of binding common international law. The Definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg Principles, a document that came out of this trial. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session.

The report of the commission also contains commentaries on the principles. Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Principle II The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principles III The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle V Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:. Crimes Against Peace: a. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;. War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Crimes Against Humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law. Contrary to the original plans, no subsequent international tribunal took place because the four Allies were unable to agree on joint subsequent trials.

As a compromise, the quadripartite Control Council that governed Germany enacted a law authorizing each of the four Powers to carry on with such prosecution in its own zone of occupation as it might see fit. From , twelve U. Similar trials were conducted in the French, British and Soviet zones of occupation. Its impact caused several effects beyond creating a mere term to be used in military tribunals and political purposes. This convention criminalized genocide and related activities in the international sphere, and the convention itself is heavily influenced by many of the Nuremberg principles.

It also extended this crime against humanity beyond periods of war and the specific scenario of the Second World War. The Genocide Convention was not, per se, a major advancement in the upholding of international human rights, especially considering its provision in Articles V and VI, which provide that states should regulate their legal systems accordingly to criminalize such acts in the domestic sphere, and that those found guilty of the crime of genocide should be tried in the courts of the country where the acts were committed in absence of a competent international tribunal with consented jurisdiction over the matter, and many academics have shown to be quite skeptical about its practical possibilities.

However, on the theoretical arena the Convention Against Genocide is a development from the precepts set in Nuremberg, in such a sudden and ad hoc manner, especially where codification of Crimes Against Humanity is concerned. The Convention takes the main aspect of these crimes, extirpates it from a broad definition, and narrows it down into one separate and codified principle.

Genocide as defined in Articles II and III practically cover all those measures taken by the Nazis during their persecution and brutal extermination of certain social, religious and cultural groups: those same atrocities which the members of the Court dubbed as Crimes Against Humanity took concrete form in this Convention.

In the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first legal document to recognize such rights as binding, and creating the notion of Human Rights as we understand it today.

The influence which Nuremberg and to a certain extent the Tokyo trials had upon the formulation and conception of such a declaration cannot be understated. Nuremberg had for the first time in international law traced a definite distinction between jus ad bello a doctrine concerned exclusively on the conduct in warfare, and jus ad bellum, which concerns itself with the justice or legality of the waging of war.

By introducing the new principles of Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity, Nuremberg effectively fathered a globalized concern towards certain attitudes in war and, by extension, for the rights of all human beings suffering the effects of certain modes of violence.

This supposed impact on the Universal Declaration has been backed up by the fact that some academics have stated that the UN Charter itself was almost a product of Nuremberg and the issues raised before, during and after the Trial. Superior orders would be no excuse but could be considered in mitigation. Inspired by the horrors revealed at the Nuremberg Trials, the Assembly passed another resolution calling for a convention to prohibit and punish the crime of genocide — by such a tribunal as might later prove acceptable to the parties.

Experts were soon designated to draw up a Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind and to draft statutes for an international criminal court to punish such offenses. In December , the U. The resolution was one of the so-called Geneva conventions, named after the Swiss city where they were signed. During the Tokyo trials extensive reference was made to Nuremberg and its definition of Crimes Against Humanity. Accordingly to several academics, Article 6 C of the Charter drafted in the London Agreement was in a way formulated exclusively with the thought of prosecuting the Nazi leaders held responsible for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people and other targeted groups both inside and outside Germany.

Tokyo was the first stepping-stone from Nuremberg, which would lead to the universalization of Crimes Against Humanity and its relevant derivations. The end of tight Communist control in Eastern Europe also unleashed long-suppressed nationalism among ethnic groups.

Ethnic-based conflict broke out almost immediately, prompted largely by the resistance to independence of large Serb minorities in Croatia. In , the Security Council established a Commission of Experts to investigate evidence of violations of humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

The accounts of atrocities in the early years of the Bosnian Civil War prompted the creation of the first international war-crimes court since Nuremberg and Tokyo. In May , the U. The new court, with its seat in The Hague was given responsibility for prosecuting crimes that violated the Geneva Conventions, including genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

As of September , a total of 78 individuals have been publicly indicted by the Court. Fifty-seven of those indicted are Serbs, 18 are Croats and 3 are Moslems.

The court handed down its first sentence in November , sentencing Drazen Edemovic, a Croat who served in the Bosnian Serb Army, to ten years in prison for his role in the Srebrenica massacre. There were reports that perhaps half a million Tutsi and their supporters were being savagely massacred by the dominant Hutu government.

The Security Council sent a small commission to investigate Res. United Nations forces were dispatched to Rwanda to help restore order to that battered country. Leading Nazi officials will be indicted and placed on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, under Article 6 of the IMT's Charter for the following crimes: 1 Conspiracy to commit charges 2, 3, and 4, which are listed here; 2 crimes against peace—defined as participation in the planning and waging of a war of aggression in violation of numerous international treaties; 3 war crimes—defined as violations of the internationally agreed upon rules for waging war; and 4 crimes against humanity—"namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Martin Bormann Hitler's adjutant is to be tried in absentia. Three are sentenced to life imprisonment Hess, economics minister Walther Funk, and Raeder. Four receive prison terms ranging from 10 to 20 years Doenitz, Schirach, Speer, and Neurath. The court acquits three defendants: Hjalmar Schacht economics minister , Franz von Papen German politician who played an important role in Hitler's appointment as chancellor , and Hans Fritzsche head of press and radio.

The other 10 defendants are hanged, their bodies cremated, and the ashes deposited in the Isar River. The seven major war criminals sentenced to prison terms are remanded to the Spandau Prison in Berlin.

We would like to thank Crown Family Philanthropies and the Abe and Ida Cooper Foundation for supporting the ongoing work to create content and resources for the Holocaust Encyclopedia. View the list of all donors. Trending keywords:. Featured Content. Tags Find topics of interest and explore encyclopedia content related to those topics.

Browse A-Z Find articles, photos, maps, films, and more listed alphabetically. The first international war crimes tribunal in history revealed the true extent of German atrocities and held some of the most prominent Nazis accountable for their crimes. Courtesy National Archives and Records Administration. On October 18, , the opening session of the first international war crimes trial in history took place in Berlin, Germany.

Over the course of nine months, the International Military Tribunal IMT indicted 24 high-ranking military, political, and industrial leaders of the Third Reich. It charged them with war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit these crimes.

The tribunal in Nuremberg was only the first of many war crimes trials held in Europe and Asia in the aftermath of World War II, but the prominence of the German defendants and the participation of all of the major Allies made it an unprecedented event in international law. The IMT was the first time that international treaties concluded among states were used to prosecute individuals.

When the judges rendered their final verdicts on October 1, , 12 of the defendants were sentenced to death, three were acquitted, and the rest received sentences ranging from 10 years to life in prison. Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann was tried in absentia and therefore his death sentence could not be carried out a DNA test in confirmed he had died in Berlin at the end of the war. American Master Sergeant John C. Woods hanged the remaining 10 condemned men on October 16, Although the charges brought against the German defendants at Nuremberg largely derived from prewar international treaties, the tribunal was controversial even in Allied countries.

Several prominent figures in the Allied governments, including British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, initially favored a much more extreme course of action and advocated for the summary execution of German war criminals.

The governments of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and the United States, however, eventually agreed upon a jointly-run tribunal with judges and prosecutors drawn from each of these countries. When it came to some of the more questionable legal issues, such as the ambiguous charge of conspiracy, the Allies ensured that none of the defendants were convicted on this charge alone.

Even so, some Germans accused the Allies of conducting an unfair trial with a predetermined outcome. Other critics of the IMT noted that Nazi defendants could not appeal their convictions. Despite these condemnations, the IMT is widely considered today to have been a remarkably fair execution of justice.

Moreover, it achieved several key objectives outlined by its architects. Allied leaders hoped that the IMT, and subsequent trials of more than 1, Nazi war criminals, would accomplish a number of ambitious goals. First and foremost, the Allies hoped the trials would punish Germans guilty of horrific crimes.

American leaders also hoped the IMT would deter future aggression by establishing a precedent for international trials. This last objective was crucial to the Allied plan to discredit Nazism and denazify Germany.