• ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Quick note to say legally speaking Nuremberg trials were kangaroo courts, and many prosecutors and judges were uneasy about the whole thing because many of the offences were not illegal in the Third Reich, and international law wasn’t yet developed enough to make them offences in a wider sense. That said, Nazis deserved a comeuppance and subsequently international laws were made more useful. But Nuremberg should never be held as the gold standard of jurisprudence. They were a starting point and we should always aim higher. People can look to The Hague for more effective and legally sound judgements on the matters of war crimes and human rights violations.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why were they kangaroo courts? They were established by an International Charter.. You can point out that the Nazi’s crimes weren’t illegal under German law, but who cares? Multiple jurisdictions can exist simultaneously. Sure there’s an element of ex post facto in making crimes against humanity a legal charge after the fact, but the ex post facto protections are something we democratically agreed to adopt. And maybe we can just agree to not let genocide be subject to ex post facto protections under international treaty. Yes, this was all just made up by people, but ultimately all laws and legal systems were first dreamed up by people doing a lot of improvisation.