Nuremberg’s Enduring Legacy: How the Postwar Trials Reshaped Global Justice

The Nuremberg trials, convened by the Allied powers after World War II to prosecute prominent Nazi leaders for war crimes, concluded on 1 October 1946. These ten months of hearings marked a decisive turning point in international criminal justice, laying the groundwork for the International Criminal Court. Bruno Cathala, who helped establish the ICC, explains to RFI how the Nuremberg trials transformed the course of history.

The trials concluded with 12 Nazi defendants sentenced to death and seven others receiving prison terms ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.

Prior to Nuremberg, international law focused primarily on states rather than individuals. The trials established a groundbreaking precedent by prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace.

In 1950, the United Nations codified the Nuremberg Principles—seven guidelines that established key concepts including individual responsibility, the supremacy of international law, the absence of immunity for heads of state, and the principle that following orders does not absolve individuals of responsibility.

These principles paved the way for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002, the world’s only permanent independent international tribunal, which prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

French judge Bruno Cathala played a pivotal role in creating the ICC and served as its first registrar from 2003 to 2008. He is also the author of Judging Evil: History of International Criminal Justice, and spoke to RFI about why the Nuremberg trials represented a pivotal turning point.

Bruno Cathala: In reality, Nuremberg didn’t just change the history of international law—it changed the history of the world. Everything shifted with Nuremberg.

Before Nuremberg, states were absolutely sovereign. Leaders could not be prosecuted—only states could be held responsible, not their leaders. Indeed, an attempt had been made to prosecute Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1919, but he remained in the Netherlands and was not extradited, meaning no head of state had ever faced trial.

Then, in 1945, a groundbreaking idea emerged: responsibility extended beyond abstract entities—states—to individuals themselves. This was the great change. There was accountability, and an attempt to end impunity. That was the first fundamental shift.

The second fundamental change was the principle that states could not simply enact whatever laws they wished, as Nazi Germany had done. In other words, no leader could commit crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes and claim absolute sovereignty within their own state. This remains a fundamental principle today.

RFI: So Nuremberg was a trial of many firsts?

BC: The 24 defendants indicted at Nuremberg were the principal surviving Nazi leaders—Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, and other prominent figures.

That was something fundamental. When you see these individuals in the defendants’ box, the world changes. They are finally seen for what they are: criminals in the dock. For the international community, for the victims, and for all who had suffered, that represented an enormous shift.

RFI: Was that the intention of the Nuremberg trials—to send that message to heads of state and leaders?

BC: Absolutely. The spirit of Nuremberg was not only about sending a message to Nazi Germany, but also to ourselves—to the Americans, French, and Soviets who were present.

I will quote Robert Jackson, the United States chief prosecutor, who was one of the great figures at Nuremberg and in international criminal justice.

Speaking to the judges, he said: ‘I do not expect that you can make war impossible, but we hope to place the force of international law—its prescriptions and prohibitions—at the service of peace.’

And that applies regardless of the country.

RFI: After the Nuremberg trials, international justice lay dormant for decades throughout the Cold War. In your book Judging Evil: History of International Criminal Justice, you recall that as a student in the late 1970s, one of your professors said: ‘Prosecuting heads of state? You can’t be serious.’

BC: That has fundamentally changed today. We can no longer say that. There is concern among different countries and people—some oppose the International Criminal Court, some support it, and some fear being tried.

But in the 1970s, nobody talked about it anymore. As you said, there was a kind of great slumber. On the one hand, the Cold War; on the other, decolonisation wars. Nobody really wanted to be subject to international justice.

The major change came after the fall of the Berlin Wall. From that point on, states began to agree that conflicts should not only be settled by force, but that wars should finally be addressed through justice. Force was used in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but those responsible were to be tried for their crimes.

RFI: Tell us about the beginnings of the ICC…

BC: We started with nothing. The Dutch state had rented us a building that had previously housed the Dutch telecommunications company—13 floors, completely empty. We had to fill this empty shell with legal texts. We had to build everything from scratch.

RFI: You’ve said that creating institutions is like building a house with Lego—what matters is that it holds together. This image is being used again today. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said he would dismantle the ICC brick by brick. How do you react to such attacks on something you helped create?

BC: I first reflect on this history—the history of international criminal justice and the progress of the human spirit. It is not a linear history, but it always moves forward. The Americans have done this before: from the beginning, they attacked the ICC, then returned, then withdrew again.

There is resistance and opposition from various sides—international public opinion, NGOs, and states alike—because states that sign up to the ICC are also staking their sovereignty. My reaction is that there have always been ups and downs with international criminal justice.

In reality, things eventually evolve. I believe they will gradually change in a positive direction. So we must hold on.

RFI: So you don’t think the ICC is in danger of dying today?

BC: As long as we have states that support it, high-quality judges, and people who understand that the rule of law is fundamental to them too, I don’t think it is in danger of dying.

Source link