THE LAW ON TRIAL: A JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NUREMBERG TRIALS

ABSTRACT The Nuremberg trials go down in history as the end of the Second World War. The trials, however however represent more than that. This is because it was not only criminals who were being put on trial but also an ideology. However great care should have been taken into making sure that this does not become a kangaroo trial and that justice its truest sense is done. In parts of the trial a few legal grey areas were reached and it is still impossible to objectively judge whether this trial was truly in the interests of justice and if the judgement was due to judicial and not political considerations. However, a bare analysis of the facts make it obvious that something had to be done and the War Criminals could not be allowed to go free, and this was seen as the fairest alternative. In this paper, an attempt had been made to analyse the facts and circumstances present during the trial, and to understand the delicate jurisprudential arguments made by the parties in an objective manner. The law used and the reasoning given by both the lawyers for the parties and the bench have been discussed, and all in all, the legality and fairness of the entire process will be evaluated. One of the main issues with these trials was that there was no legal basis for them, and it was questioned if law has the ability to judge itself and if there were legal grounds to discuss the legality of a law passed by the sovereign in a nation. It is because of these reasons that the Nuremberg trials are an important part of international criminal law.