International Law

The Nuremberg War Crimes TrialThe Nuremberg state of war crimes audition , portrayed by many a(prenominal) as a landmark in international pictorial law , actually appeared to be stacked against the def finaleants and was evidently conducted to make water a desired result . Even before the end of the endorsement World War , representatives of the allied forces and some of the European governments in exile were already discussing the fate of the leadership of national socialist Germany after the war . The general belief prevailing at the conviction was that the Nazi leadership should be subjected to a governmental quite than a legal judgment because the crimes they committed were beyond the celestial orbit of human justice In position , the leaders from England , France and the Soviet Union favored summarily kill the Nazi leaders . They were prevailed upon by the United States , however , which had been advocating for a running game . By August 1945 , delegates from the four countries gathered in London to leaven the International Military Tribunal which would canvas the cases in Nuremberg (Court TVThe tourist romance , with two judges on an individual basis coming from the four countries indicted blackjack oak assert German war criminals under(a) four counts namely : conspiracy , crimes against peace war crimes and crimes against humanity The defense mold up by around of the accused claiming that they were only under the s of Adolf Hitler when they committed the allege crimes was brushed aside by the court which later sentenced 11 of them to death while iii were imprisoned for life A prison term of twenty dollar bill age was meted out for two of the accused and one each was sentenced to an handcuffs of fifteen and ten years Three of them were released when the court engraf t them not guilty of any crime , including F! ranz von Papen , the German premier who helped propel Hitler and his Nazi party to power in 1933 (The recital Place n .dThe trial had plenty of limitations and shortcomings . This has material personify doubts as to its fairness and impartiality and in fact coerce some people to question its outcome . As a matter of fact , Robert H . Jackson himself , the chief prosecuting officer for the United States , alluded to the possibility of a one-sided result when he stated in his opening statement that Unfortunately , the nous of these crimes is such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over the vanquished foes The neutrality of the judges , thusly , was neer a guarantee even before the trial started (Robert H . Jackson , 1945This was aggravated by the systemic defects in the laws expressly established to guide the conduct of the tribunal . atomic number 53 of these was the acceptance of hearsay or second-hand info , or untarnished rumors , as evid ence . There was never a famine of this owing to the great number of relatives of alleged war crimes victims who were shouting for justice Another was the fact that the purpose of the tribunal was final examination and could not be subject to appeal because there was no court higher than the tribunal where an appeal...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper