European think tanks published an article analyzing how to see through the fog of war crimes. The groundbreaking tribunal for the atrocities committed by the Axis powers during World War II was born out of both Cold War politics and the national self-interests of the victorious powers. Yet, despite all the shortcomings, both trials show that the enormous challenge of impartially prosecuting high-level ** convicted of serious crimes is worth pursuing.
If there's one thing that unites almost everyone on the issue of the war in Ukraine and the Middle East, it's"Double standards"Distorts other people's perspectives. The perception that one side has adopted different measures from the other underpins many of the divisions that each conflict raises that distort global politics.
Just last week, for example, the International Court of Justice's interim order in response to South Africa's claim that Israel is guilty of racial guilt has been widely read in terms of double standards. Such accusations plague not only Israel and Hamas, Russia and Ukraine, but also the United States and its Western allies, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and even institutions of higher learning.
Accusations of double standards cover many areas of public life, from gender and racial equality to sports and bathrooms, but it has a particular repercussion in the field of international criminal justice. The authority of all justice systems depends on the public's perception of their fairness and impartiality, and is therefore vulnerable to accusations of moral hypocrisy. This is particularly true of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, or the International Criminal Court, which was established in the nineties and 2000s of the twentieth century to deal with crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Cambodia. Although some international norms and institutions have been around for decades, their usage is still relatively low, in part because politicians in most countries don't want someone on their shoulders"Finger and point"。
International crime sits at the intersection of law and politics, and every case before the Court has the potential to have an impact on the survival of all parties involved. The prosecution of Heads of State or Senior Ministers who have committed serious crimes provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate the capacity of the law to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power. But precisely because the stakes are so high, such prosecutions could blur the lines between law and politics, leading some observers to wonder if the rule of law is possible. February** Dynamic Incentive Program
The Nuremberg Tribunals and the Tokyo Tribunals, which prosecuted German and Japanese leaders after World War II, set a model for the international judicial movement. The movement's basic principles include: justice is an essential foundation for lasting peace; No one is above the law; Individual criminal responsibility enables society to face up to crimes committed in its name without the need for collective punishment.
The post-World War II tribunals made groundbreaking legal innovations, including new crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity and race, as well as improved laws and customs of war.
These tribunals have affirmed that political and military leaders can and should personally be held accountable for crimes that have long been considered acts of the State, and they refuse to accept it"Just doing what you are told"of the defense. As Francine Hirsch, a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said of the Nuremberg Tribunals, these tribunals became during the Cold War shortly after the war"A laboratory for the elaboration and development of the language of human rights"。
The trials conducted by the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, like those that followed, were imperfect instruments for the search for abstract truth, but this does not diminish their achievements. In his book The Soviet Verdict at Nuremberg, Hirsch draws attention to the crucial but overlooked role played by the Soviet Union and its jurists in the Nuremberg Trials. In The Tokyo Trial, Princeton University historian Gary Bass highlights the extent to which the combination of uneven judicial leadership and contentious international politics has diminished the symbolism of the Tokyo Tribunal.
In other words, both of these groundbreaking tribunals were born out of and destroyed by the emerging politics of the Cold War; They are plagued by double standards and hypocrisy, both real and perceived; Their heritage is as complex as their origins. On the one hand, they embody the monumental promise proclaimed by Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials:"The great powers, in the joy of victory and the sting of hurt, can stop the hand of vengeance and voluntarily place their captive enemies under the judgment of the law". On the other hand, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials later became fodder for cynical politicians to distort their meaning and exploit their flaws. 
The Nuremberg Trials were the earliest and shorter, lasting just over ten months, and have been receiving more attention in the West. By contrast, the majority of the Tokyo tribunal's judgments were long overdue, relying on the reasoning of the Nuremberg tribunal to assert its jurisdiction, taking longer, two and a half years, and with clear disagreements among the 11 judges.
Most of these controversies touched on issues at the heart of the legitimacy of the Tokyo tribunal, as evidenced by three opposing and two concurring opinions, as well as a slim majority in favour of sentencing the seven accused to death. The other 16 were sentenced to life imprisonment and two lesser sentences. The Nuremberg Main Trial acquitted 3 of the 21 accused and 3 of the 6 accused criminal organizations, while none of the 25 accused in the Tokyo Trial were acquitted.
The basic principles and systems of international criminal law do not emerge in a vacuum. They are often the product of specific political interests and arguments. That fact was not in itself destructive, since it always took political will to translate rhetoric into reality, but its legitimacy was even more difficult to guarantee if the rhetoric surrounding international justice failed to take into account the political elements behind it.
As Hirsch said, there is a lot of talk about the establishment of the International Criminal Court to prosecute the crime of aggression ("People who break the peace"with"Breach of the peace"The proposal appeared in the USSR in the 30s of the 20th century"The reason for this was the imminent threat from Nazi Germany and Japan, which had just signed the International Treaty on Production, which was clearly directed against the Soviet Union"。Aaron Train, a Russian scholar and editor who advised Soviet prosecutors at Nuremberg, was the main leader of these views.
Think Tank PS - February 2, 2024 James A. Goldston.