Nuremberg Trials Analysis

1. Introduction

The Nuremberg trials mark the decisive moment when international law crossed from condemning state conduct to criminally judging individuals acting in the name of the state. Their importance does not lie in symbolism or moral awakening, but in the concrete legal problems they forced into resolution under extreme political pressure. For the first time, senior political, military, and administrative leaders were prosecuted before an international tribunal for crimes defined and applied at the international level. This shift altered the structure of responsibility in international law and permanently narrowed the protective reach of sovereignty.

The trials emerged from deep legal uncertainty rather than doctrinal clarity. In 1945, there was no permanent international criminal court, no settled procedural framework, and no universally accepted doctrine that individuals could be punished under international law for the initiation of war. The Allied powers were divided on whether legal process was even desirable. Proposals for summary execution reflected doubts that existing law could sustain criminal trials without collapsing into retroactive punishment. The eventual decision to establish the International Military Tribunal, therefore, represented a strategic legal gamble: accountability would be pursued through adjudication, even if that required interpretive expansion of existing norms (Overy, 2001).

This gamble created the central tension that defines the Nuremberg legacy. The Tribunal needed to demonstrate legal continuity with pre-existing international law while simultaneously addressing conduct that many believed had escaped clear criminal classification. The solution adopted by the judges was not to deny innovation, but to frame it as clarification. Aggressive war was treated as already unlawful under interwar treaty commitments, and individual criminal responsibility was presented as the necessary enforcement mechanism for that unlawfulness. The legality principle was not abandoned, but reinterpreted through the concepts of foreseeability and moral choice rather than formal legislative enactment (Wright, 1947).

This approach remains controversial because it exposes a structural feature of international law: its norms often develop through treaties, practice, and judicial reasoning rather than through a single legislature. Nuremberg confronted this reality directly. The Tribunal rejected the argument that only domestic criminal law could ground personal punishment, insisting instead that international law itself could impose duties on individuals independent of state authorization. By doing so, it challenged the long-standing assumption that states alone were the subjects of international law and that individuals were relevant only indirectly.

The trials also forced a reckoning with selectivity. Jurisdiction was limited to Axis leaders, and enforcement power rested exclusively with the victors. Certain categories of conduct, including actions that might have implicated Allied decision-making, were excluded from scrutiny. This asymmetry has often been cited as evidence that the proceedings amounted to victor’s justice. Legally, however, selectivity did not negate the existence of the norms applied; it exposed the dependency of international criminal law on political conditions for its operation (Koskenniemi, 2002). Nuremberg thus demonstrated both the possibility of international criminal adjudication and its vulnerability to power dynamics.

A further doctrinal challenge concerned how to translate mass, system-level criminality into individual liability. The crimes addressed at Nuremberg were not isolated acts but policies implemented through bureaucratic and military structures. The Tribunal responded by developing modes of responsibility such as conspiracy, participation in a common plan, and criminal organizational membership. These concepts allowed the law to capture leadership responsibility without requiring proof of direct physical perpetration. At the same time, they raised enduring questions about the boundary between culpable participation and impermissible guilt by association, questions that continue to shape modern jurisprudence.

The procedural framework of the trials reflects similar compromises. Evidentiary rules were relaxed, the prosecution enjoyed structural advantages, and the Tribunal combined judicial and quasi-legislative functions. None of these features fit comfortably within classical domestic criminal procedure. Yet the proceedings were public, reasoned judgments were issued, and defendants were afforded legal representation and the opportunity to contest the charges. The result was an imperfect but recognizable form of adjudication, designed to produce a historical and legal record capable of outlasting the immediate post-war moment (Jackson, 1949).

The significance of Nuremberg was not confined to the courtroom. Its legal propositions were rapidly abstracted and reformulated through institutional processes, most notably by the United Nations General Assembly and the International Law Commission. The articulation of the Nuremberg Principles transformed the Tribunal’s holdings into generalized statements of international law, separating them from the exceptional context of the Second World War. This step was essential for converting a singular tribunal into a normative reference point for future accountability efforts.

This article approaches the Nuremberg trials as a case study in constrained legal innovation. Rather than asking whether the Tribunal perfectly satisfied domestic standards of criminal legality, it examines how international law adapted under pressure to address crimes of a scale and nature previously treated as political facts rather than legal wrongs. The analysis focuses on doctrinal choices, their justifications, and their later reception in international criminal jurisprudence. The objective is not retrospective moral judgment, but legal understanding: what Nuremberg stabilized, what it left unresolved, and why its reasoning continues to structure contemporary debates on international criminal responsibility.

By examining these issues through concrete legal problems rather than abstract praise or condemnation, the article situates the Nuremberg trials within the ongoing effort to reconcile legality, accountability, and power in international law.

2. Jurisdictional construction of the International Military Tribunal

The jurisdiction of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) was not derived from a standing international judicial system but deliberately assembled through a combination of inter-Allied agreement, occupation authority, and claims about the international legal order that predated 1945. Understanding this construction is essential because it exposes the legal logic that allowed the Tribunal to function without a permanent court, a universal treaty mandate, or consent from the accused state. Jurisdiction at Nuremberg was therefore neither purely international nor purely domestic; it was a hybrid designed to be legally defensible under exceptional conditions.

2.1 Legal basis of the IMT Charter

The immediate legal foundation of the Tribunal was the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and its annexed Charter. Formally, the Charter was a treaty among the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. This treaty basis mattered because it framed the Tribunal as an exercise of joint sovereign authority rather than unilateral victor punishment. Each of the four powers asserted jurisdiction not merely as victors, but as representatives acting on behalf of the international community that had fought the Axis powers.

At the same time, treaty form alone could not fully justify jurisdiction over German nationals for crimes defined and prosecuted internationally. The deeper claim advanced by the Allies was that Germany’s unconditional surrender and the collapse of its governmental authority placed supreme governing power in the hands of the occupying powers. Under occupation law, those powers possessed legislative and judicial authority within the occupied territory. The IMT was presented as an exercise of that authority, extended to acts that affected the international community as a whole rather than only the occupied territory (Kelsen, 1947).

This dual justification—treaty-based cooperation among victors combined with occupation-derived authority over the defeated state—allowed the Tribunal to bypass the need for German consent. The defendants’ argument that only German courts could lawfully exercise criminal jurisdiction was rejected on the basis that the German state no longer possessed sovereign authority capable of administering justice for crimes that had fundamentally violated international obligations. Jurisdiction was thus grounded in the displacement of sovereignty rather than its continuation.

2.2 International jurisdiction without a permanent court

The absence of a permanent international criminal court forced the Allies to confront a structural gap in international law. Before 1945, international adjudication was primarily inter-state and consensual. Criminal prosecution of individuals for international crimes had been contemplated but never institutionalised. The IMT filled this gap through ad hoc construction, asserting that the lack of an existing court did not negate the existence of international crimes or the authority to punish them.

The Tribunal’s reasoning implicitly separated substantive criminal norms from institutional enforcement mechanisms. Acts such as war crimes and aggressive war were treated as already regulated by international law; the Tribunal was merely the forum through which enforcement occurred. This distinction proved crucial for later developments, as it allowed subsequent bodies to argue that criminal accountability could exist even when institutional capacity lagged behind normative development (Wright, 1947).

Jurisdiction was also framed as functional rather than general. The IMT did not claim universal criminal jurisdiction over all international crimes or all perpetrators. Its mandate was tightly circumscribed to major war criminals whose crimes lacked a specific geographic locus and whose conduct implicated the collective security of the international system. This limited scope was presented as evidence of restraint rather than overreach, even though it reflected political compromise as much as legal principle.

2.3 Relationship between state sovereignty and international authority

One of the most significant jurisdictional implications of the Tribunal was its treatment of sovereignty. The defence argued that acts carried out under state authority, including decisions to wage war, fell within the domestic jurisdiction of Germany and were therefore immune from external adjudication. The Tribunal rejected this claim by drawing a sharp distinction between sovereignty as a principle of equality among states and sovereignty as a shield for international crimes.

The judgment asserted that international law imposes obligations directly on individuals and that violations of those obligations cannot be insulated by reference to state authority or official position. This reasoning did not abolish sovereignty, but it redefined its limits. Sovereignty could no longer be invoked to bar jurisdiction where the conduct in question constituted a breach of fundamental international norms (Jackson, 1949).

This move had lasting consequences. By asserting jurisdiction over individuals acting in official capacities, the IMT established a model in which international authority could coexist with, and occasionally override, traditional sovereignty claims. Later international tribunals would adopt similar reasoning, but Nuremberg was the first to operationalise it in criminal proceedings.

2.4 Jurisdictional selectivity and its legal implications

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction was selective by design. Only Axis leaders were prosecuted, and only certain categories of conduct were included within the Charter. Critics have argued that this selectivity undermined the legality of the proceedings. From a doctrinal standpoint, however, selectivity did not invalidate jurisdiction; it reflected the conditions under which jurisdiction could be exercised.

International law has long tolerated asymmetric enforcement, particularly in the absence of centralized authority. The IMT’s jurisdiction demonstrated that the existence of a legal norm does not depend on universal or symmetrical enforcement. Instead, it depends on whether the enforcing authority can plausibly claim legal competence over the accused and the subject matter. At Nuremberg, that competence was derived from the combination of occupation authority, inter-Allied agreement, and the international character of the crimes.

The legal cost of this selectivity was reputational rather than jurisdictional. While the Tribunal succeeded in asserting authority over the defendants before it, it also exposed the dependency of international criminal jurisdiction on power configurations. This dependency remains a defining feature of the field and continues to shape debates about legitimacy and equality before international law (Koskenniemi, 2002).

2.5 Jurisdiction as a precedent rather than a template

The jurisdictional architecture of the IMT was never intended to be replicated wholesale. Its designers repeatedly emphasised the exceptional nature of the Tribunal and resisted claims that it constituted a general criminal court for the future. Nonetheless, its reasoning created a precedent in the strict sense: it demonstrated that international criminal jurisdiction over individuals was legally possible without prior consent, provided certain conditions were met.

Those conditions included the existence of internationally wrongful acts of exceptional gravity, the collapse or displacement of the territorial sovereign, and the presence of an enforcing authority capable of asserting jurisdiction credibly. Later international criminal institutions would seek to normalise and regularise these elements through treaties and permanent courts. The IMT’s jurisdiction, therefore, stands as a foundational experiment, revealing both the possibilities and the limits of international criminal adjudication in the absence of a fully developed institutional order.

3. Crimes against peace: retroactivity and its doctrinal fallout

The prosecution of crimes against peace was the most legally controversial aspect of the Nuremberg trials because it required the Tribunal to transform a prohibition directed at states into a basis for individual criminal liability. Unlike war crimes, which had long been regulated through detailed treaties and customary rules, aggressive war occupied an uncertain position in international law before 1945. The IMT’s decision to treat the planning and initiation of aggressive war as an international crime forced a direct confrontation with the legality principle and set in motion doctrinal debates that continue to shape contemporary international criminal law.

3.1 Aggression before Nuremberg Trials

Before the Second World War, international law addressed the use of force primarily through inter-state obligations rather than criminal sanctions. The Covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg–Briand Pact reflected a growing consensus that war should no longer be treated as a lawful instrument of national policy. These instruments, however, were framed in terms of state responsibility and diplomatic consequences, not individual punishment. No explicit rule stated that political or military leaders could be criminally liable for the decision to wage war.

The prosecution at Nuremberg argued that this distinction was artificial. By the interwar period, aggressive war had been legally condemned, and those who planned and launched such wars could not plausibly claim ignorance of that condemnation. The Tribunal accepted this reasoning, describing aggressive war as “the supreme international crime” because it contained within itself the accumulated evil of subsequent atrocities. The emphasis was not on novelty, but on enforcement: the criminalisation of aggression was presented as the logical consequence of its prior illegality.

This move relied heavily on the idea that international law evolves through normative commitments expressed in treaties and state practice, even when enforcement mechanisms lag behind. The Tribunal treated the absence of prior prosecutions as evidence of political failure rather than legal permissibility. In doing so, it reframed the historical record to support a continuity-based interpretation of the law governing the use of force.

3.2 The retroactivity objection

The defence challenged this reasoning by invoking nullum crimen sine lege. The argument was straightforward: at the time the alleged acts were committed, no rule of international law imposed criminal liability on individuals for aggressive war. To prosecute such conduct after the fact, even if morally compelling, would violate a foundational principle of criminal justice.

The Tribunal’s response avoided a formalist reading of legality. Rather than asking whether a specific penal statute existed, it asked whether the defendants could reasonably have foreseen that their conduct was criminal under international law. The judges emphasised that aggressive war had been condemned through binding international commitments and that the defendants were sophisticated actors who had actively participated in shaping and violating those commitments. Criminal liability was therefore justified on the basis of normative clarity and conscious defiance, not legislative precision.

This reasoning marked a departure from domestic criminal law models, where legality is typically tied to prior statutory definition. At Nuremberg, legality was grounded in the combination of treaty obligations, general principles of law, and the moral agency of the accused. Critics have argued that this approach weakened the legality principle by replacing formal certainty with retrospective moral judgment. Supporters respond that strict statutory legality is ill-suited to an international legal order that lacks a central legislature.

3.3 Individual responsibility for state acts

A further doctrinal leap involved the attribution of state conduct to individuals. Decisions to initiate war are quintessentially governmental acts, traditionally shielded by doctrines of sovereignty and the act of state. The IMT rejected the idea that such acts could never give rise to personal criminal responsibility. It held that crimes against peace are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and that international law would be meaningless if it could not reach those who control state policy.

This reasoning effectively dismantled the notion that the highest level of decision-making lies beyond legal accountability. It also blurred the line between political responsibility and criminal culpability. The Tribunal did not attempt to criminalise all policy errors or unlawful uses of force; it confined liability to wars of aggression characterised by deliberate planning and conscious violation of international obligations. Even so, the judgment established a principle with far-reaching implications: participation in collective state decision-making does not immunise individuals from criminal responsibility when the resulting act constitutes a serious breach of international law.

3.4 Doctrinal fallout in later international law

The immediate aftermath of Nuremberg revealed deep ambivalence about crimes against peace. While the International Law Commission codified the concept as part of the Nuremberg Principles, states were reluctant to operationalise it through permanent institutions. Unlike war crimes and crimes against humanity, aggression remained largely dormant as a prosecutable offence for decades.

This hesitation reflected unresolved concerns about legality, evidentiary standards, and political selectivity. Determining what constitutes aggression often requires complex assessments of self-defence, collective security authorisation, and contested facts. Translating those assessments into individual criminal liability raises the risk of politicised prosecutions. As a result, post-Nuremberg tribunals avoided jurisdiction over aggression altogether, focusing instead on atrocity crimes with clearer evidentiary and normative contours.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court illustrates both continuity and retreat. Aggression was included as a crime in principle, reflecting Nuremberg’s normative legacy, but jurisdiction was deferred until states could agree on a definition and conditions for exercise. The eventual activation of that jurisdiction decades later underscores the enduring influence of Nuremberg’s reasoning while also highlighting the caution with which states approach the criminalisation of decisions to use force.

3.5 Enduring relevance of the retroactivity debate

The debate over retroactivity at Nuremberg remains relevant because it exposes a structural tension in international criminal law: the gap between normative development and institutional enforcement. Nuremberg resolved that tension pragmatically, prioritising accountability over formal legislative pedigree. That choice strengthened the expressive power of international law but also set a precedent that continues to provoke concern.

Modern international criminal institutions have attempted to narrow this gap by insisting on detailed treaty definitions and prospective jurisdiction. Even so, the core question persists. When international law condemns certain conduct as fundamentally wrongful but lacks established enforcement mechanisms, should criminal accountability await perfect institutional design, or can adjudication play a role in consolidating the norm? The Nuremberg trials answered that question affirmatively, and the doctrinal fallout of that answer continues to shape how international law grapples with the crime of aggression today.

4. Crimes against humanity: the conditional breakthrough

Crimes against humanity represented the most conceptually innovative yet doctrinally constrained category applied by the International Military Tribunal. Unlike war crimes, which were anchored in established treaty law, crimes against humanity addressed large-scale violence directed against a state’s own civilian population. The Tribunal’s approach produced a breakthrough in international criminal law, but one deliberately limited by jurisdictional and political considerations. This conditional construction explains both the transformative impact of the concept and its initial doctrinal fragility.

4.1 The novelty problem and the turn to conditionality

Before Nuremberg, international law offered little direct protection to individuals against their own governments. Mass murder, persecution, and deportation carried out within a state’s borders were largely treated as matters of domestic jurisdiction, even when they shocked the conscience of the international community. The IMT confronted this gap directly by recognising crimes against humanity as punishable under international law, thereby rejecting the idea that sovereignty could shield systematic violence against civilians.

At the same time, the Tribunal was acutely aware of the legality risks posed by an unconstrained formulation. To mitigate accusations of retroactive criminalisation, crimes against humanity were made conditional upon a nexus with armed conflict or crimes against peace. Acts committed before the outbreak of war, or unconnected to the aggressive campaign, fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This limitation was not a conceptual necessity but a strategic choice designed to anchor the new crime within an already unlawful international context (Overy, 2001).

The result was a hybrid category. Crimes against humanity were recognised as distinct from war crimes, yet their applicability depended on the existence of war. This allowed the Tribunal to address the Holocaust and related atrocities without asserting a general international criminal jurisdiction over peacetime repression. The breakthrough was therefore real, but carefully bounded.

4.2 The war nexus and its doctrinal implications

The war-nexus requirement shaped the legal meaning of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. By tying liability to the broader criminal project of aggressive war, the Tribunal framed atrocities against civilians as part of an international wrong rather than a purely internal matter. This framing supported jurisdiction and eased concerns about interference in domestic affairs.

Doctrinally, however, the nexus requirement introduced ambiguity. It suggested that identical acts could fall inside or outside international criminal law depending on their temporal or contextual relationship to armed conflict. Systematic murder committed during war could be prosecuted, while similar conduct carried out in peacetime remained legally invisible at the international level. This inconsistency exposed the limits of the Nuremberg formulation and foreshadowed later efforts to decouple crimes against humanity from armed conflict entirely.

The conditional approach also reflected political caution. Expanding international criminal law to cover peacetime atrocities would have raised uncomfortable questions about colonial practices, population transfers, and internal repression beyond Europe. The Tribunal’s restraint preserved consensus among the Allied powers but at the cost of doctrinal completeness.

4.3 Sovereignty redefined, not abolished

Despite its limitations, the recognition of crimes against humanity marked a decisive shift in the relationship between sovereignty and human protection. The Tribunal rejected the argument that acts authorised by domestic law were immune from international scrutiny. It affirmed that certain forms of violence against civilians violate obligations owed to the international community and that individuals responsible for such acts may be held criminally accountable.

This reasoning did not abolish sovereignty but redefined its scope. Sovereignty ceased to function as an absolute barrier when state power was used to commit mass atrocities connected to international conflict. The Tribunal thus introduced the idea that international law could penetrate the internal sphere of the state under defined conditions. This conceptual move laid the groundwork for later developments in human rights law and international criminal jurisprudence, even though Nuremberg itself applied the principle cautiously.

4.4 Evidentiary and structural consequences

Crimes against humanity also required new approaches to evidence and responsibility. The acts prosecuted were not isolated incidents but components of coordinated policies implemented through administrative, police, and military structures. The Tribunal relied heavily on documentary evidence, state records, and organisational analysis to establish patterns of conduct and leadership responsibility.

This structural focus reinforced the distinction between individual acts and collective criminality. Liability was not based solely on physical perpetration but on participation in systems designed to persecute and destroy civilian populations. The approach influenced later doctrines of command responsibility and joint criminal enterprise, while also generating debate about the proper limits of attribution and personal culpability (Wright, 1947).

4.5 Post-Nuremberg expansion and correction

The conditional nature of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg proved unsustainable as a general doctrine. Subsequent legal developments moved decisively away from the war-nexus requirement. The International Law Commission’s formulation of the Nuremberg Principles preserved crimes against humanity as a distinct category but did not insist on a connection to armed conflict. Later instruments and tribunals completed this evolution by recognising that systematic attacks against civilians are crimes under international law, regardless of wartime context.

This expansion can be understood as both a correction and a fulfilment of the Nuremberg project. The Tribunal established the core idea that mass atrocities against civilians engage international criminal responsibility. Later practice removed the conditional scaffolding that had been necessary to secure legitimacy in 1945. The modern understanding of crimes against humanity, therefore, owes its existence to Nuremberg’s cautious breakthrough, even as it departs from the limitations imposed by that historical moment.

The legacy of Nuremberg in this area is thus twofold. It demonstrated that international law could confront internal atrocities without collapsing into pure moralism, and it revealed the compromises required when law advances in the shadow of power. Crimes against humanity emerged at Nuremberg as a legally constrained innovation, one that reshaped the boundaries of international criminal law while leaving space for further doctrinal maturation.

5. Individual criminal responsibility and the collapse of sovereign immunity

The affirmation of individual criminal responsibility was the structural pillar upon which the entire Nuremberg project rested. Without it, the prosecution of international crimes would have remained confined to abstract state responsibility, incapable of addressing the reality that mass atrocities and aggressive war are planned, authorised, and implemented by identifiable decision-makers. The International Military Tribunal’s treatment of personal liability marked a decisive break with classical doctrines that insulated state officials from external criminal judgment and reoriented international law toward accountability grounded in human agency rather than institutional abstraction.

5.1 Individuals as subjects of international criminal law

Before Nuremberg, individuals appeared in international law largely as indirect objects of regulation, with responsibility mediated through the state. War crimes prosecutions conducted by domestic or military courts did not fundamentally challenge this structure because they were framed as exercises of national jurisdiction applying international norms. Nuremberg went further. It asserted that international law itself imposes duties directly on individuals and that breaches of those duties may attract criminal sanctions independent of domestic legal systems.

The Tribunal articulated this principle in categorical terms. It rejected the argument that only states can violate international law, emphasising that crimes are committed by persons acting through state machinery. This move was not merely rhetorical. It dismantled the conceptual barrier that had allowed political leaders to present themselves as embodiments of the state rather than as accountable actors. By treating individuals as direct subjects of international criminal law, the Tribunal altered the allocation of responsibility within the international legal order.

This reasoning also served a practical function. If international law could only regulate states, accountability for crimes such as aggressive war would remain illusory, since the very actors controlling state conduct would be shielded by the entity they commanded. The Tribunal’s insistence on personal liability closed that gap and rendered enforcement conceivable.

5.2 The rejection of sovereign immunity

The most explicit doctrinal consequence of this shift was the rejection of sovereign immunity as a defence. Several defendants argued that acts carried out in an official capacity, including those performed by heads of state and senior officials, could not give rise to personal criminal responsibility under international law. This claim reflected a long-standing assumption that immunity ratione personae and ratione materiae shield state officials from foreign or international jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected that assumption. It held that the official position does not absolve individuals of responsibility for international crimes. The reasoning was functional rather than theoretical. Immunity doctrines were designed to regulate relations between states, not to protect individuals from accountability for conduct that violates fundamental international norms. Allowing immunity to operate in such cases would render international law ineffective at precisely the point where enforcement is most necessary.

This reasoning did not deny the existence of immunity doctrines in international law. Instead, it limited their scope. Immunity could govern jurisdictional conflicts in ordinary inter-state relations, but it could not operate as a substantive defence against criminal responsibility for crimes recognised under international law. This distinction would later become a cornerstone of international criminal jurisprudence.

5.3 Heads of state and the dismantling of absolute authority

The application of individual responsibility to the highest levels of political authority represented a qualitative change in international law. Historically, heads of state were treated as the embodiment of sovereignty, insulated from external legal scrutiny. Nuremberg directly confronted this tradition by placing senior political and military leaders on trial and subjecting their decisions to legal evaluation.

The Tribunal’s approach was careful but firm. It did not criminalise political leadership as such, nor did it suggest that all policy decisions are justiciable. Liability was confined to conduct that constituted recognised international crimes. Even so, the implications were profound. The judgment established that the exercise of supreme authority does not place an individual beyond the reach of law when that authority is used to commit international crimes.

This development reshaped later debates on accountability. The notion that international law can pierce the veil of state authority at the highest level has since become a defining feature of international criminal justice, even as it continues to provoke resistance from states concerned about political exposure.

5.4 Superior orders and the limits of obedience

Closely linked to the rejection of sovereign immunity was the Tribunal’s treatment of the superior orders defence. Many defendants argued that they acted under orders from a higher authority and therefore lacked individual culpability. The Tribunal rejected obedience as a complete defence, holding that compliance with orders does not relieve an individual of responsibility when a moral choice was possible.

This formulation sought to balance realism and accountability. The Tribunal acknowledged the coercive pressures present in hierarchical systems but refused to accept that those pressures eliminate agency altogether. Responsibility was not negated by the existence of orders; it could, at most, mitigate punishment.

Doctrinally, this position reinforced the central premise that individuals remain moral and legal agents even within authoritarian structures. It also underscored the Tribunal’s broader commitment to personal accountability as the foundation of international criminal law.

5.5 Codification and consolidation in subsequent practice

The principles articulated at Nuremberg were not left to judicial memory. They were quickly abstracted and reformulated through institutional processes, most notably by the International Law Commission. The affirmation that individuals bear responsibility for international crimes, that official position is irrelevant, and that obedience to orders does not excuse criminal conduct became core elements of the emerging international criminal legal framework.

Later tribunals would rely on these propositions while refining their application. The collapse of sovereign immunity in international criminal law has not been absolute; questions of jurisdictional immunity continue to arise in domestic courts and diplomatic contexts. Yet as a matter of substantive criminal responsibility, Nuremberg established a baseline that has proven remarkably resilient.

The lasting significance of this development lies in its structural effect. By relocating responsibility from the abstract state to the individual decision-maker, Nuremberg transformed international law from a system primarily concerned with regulating state behaviour into one capable of assigning blame and punishment to human actors. This transformation remains one of the Tribunal’s most enduring and consequential contributions to international law.

6. Collective criminality: conspiracy and organizational guilt

One of the most controversial innovations of the Nuremberg trials was the attempt to translate regime-scale criminality into legally manageable forms of collective responsibility. The Tribunal confronted conduct that was not reducible to isolated acts but instead reflected coordinated policies implemented through political parties, military commands, and administrative bodies. Conspiracy and the declaration of criminal organizations were the principal tools used to address this problem. Both were functional responses to the reality of systemic crime, yet both exposed significant doctrinal weaknesses that limited their long-term viability.

6.1 Conspiracy as a mode of liability

Anglo-American influence and civil-law resistance

Conspiracy played a central role in the Nuremberg Charter, particularly in relation to crimes against peace. The concept reflected a strong Anglo-American legal influence, where conspiracy functions as an autonomous offence and as a mode of liability capable of capturing collective planning and agreement. For the American prosecution, conspiracy provided a way to frame aggressive war as a coordinated criminal enterprise rather than a series of disconnected decisions by individual officials.

Civil-law jurists were far less comfortable with this approach. In many continental systems, liability is anchored in concrete acts rather than in abstract agreements, and collective intent is typically addressed through participation doctrines rather than standalone conspiracy offences. The inclusion of conspiracy therefore generated unease among non-common-law judges and prosecutors, who viewed it as conceptually elastic and insufficiently tied to specific criminal conduct.

The Tribunal attempted to narrow these concerns by limiting conspiracy largely to crimes against peace. It avoided treating conspiracy as a general mode of liability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, instead requiring proof of direct participation or responsibility. This compromise reflected an implicit recognition that conspiracy, as deployed in the Charter, sat uneasily with broader principles of individual culpability.

Analytical weaknesses and overreach risks

Even within its limited application, conspiracy raised serious analytical problems. The offence risks collapsing the distinction between agreement and execution, allowing liability to attach at an early planning stage without a clear causal linkage to specific criminal acts. In the Nuremberg context, this risk was amplified by the scale and duration of the Nazi regime. Long-term political alignment or participation in governance structures could be recharacterised as criminal agreement, blurring the boundary between ideological complicity and legal guilt.

The Tribunal sought to mitigate overreach by emphasising leadership roles and demonstrable involvement in planning aggressive war. Nonetheless, the conspiracy framework remained vulnerable to criticism for diluting the requirement of personal culpability. It allowed the prosecution to construct a narrative of collective criminal intent that was difficult to disentangle from the broader functioning of the state apparatus.

These weaknesses explain why conspiracy did not become a central feature of later international criminal law. Subsequent tribunals preferred liability models that preserve a closer connection between the accused’s conduct and the crime, such as aiding and abetting, co-perpetration, and command responsibility. The Nuremberg experience demonstrated that while conspiracy is rhetorically powerful, it poses substantial risks to the precision and legitimacy of criminal attribution.

6.2 Criminal organizations

Legal logic behind declaring groups criminal

The declaration of certain organizations as criminal was another attempt to address collective criminality. The Tribunal designated entities such as the SS and the Gestapo as criminal organizations on the basis that their structures and purposes were inherently linked to the commission of international crimes. This approach served two functions. First, it allowed the Tribunal to characterise systemic violence as the product of institutional design rather than mere individual excess. Second, it facilitated subsequent prosecutions by shifting part of the evidentiary burden: membership in a criminal organization could support liability, provided the individual knew of the organization’s criminal nature.

The legal logic was pragmatic. Given the scale of the crimes, it was impractical to prove every individual act in isolation. By identifying organizations whose core functions were criminal, the Tribunal aimed to streamline accountability while still preserving a measure of individual assessment. Membership alone was not treated as sufficient for conviction; knowledge and voluntary participation remained relevant considerations.

Why did this doctrine largely disappear after Nuremberg

Despite its practical appeal, the doctrine of criminal organizations proved difficult to reconcile with core principles of criminal law. Declaring an organization criminal risks transforming an association into culpability, even when individual members occupy peripheral or coerced roles. The danger of guilt by association became particularly acute in mass organisations with varied functions and degrees of involvement.

Later international criminal jurisprudence moved away from this model in favour of more individualized liability frameworks. Concepts such as joint criminal enterprise, common purpose liability, and command responsibility sought to capture collective wrongdoing while maintaining a clearer link between personal conduct and criminal outcome. These approaches avoided the categorical stigmatisation of entire organisations and allowed for more nuanced assessments of participation and intent.

The decline of the criminal organization doctrine also reflects changes in the institutional context. Post-Nuremberg tribunals operated with greater investigative capacity and more developed procedural frameworks, reducing the perceived need for blunt collective tools. What remained from Nuremberg was the insight that collective structures matter for criminal analysis, but not the specific mechanism of organisational criminality.

The experience at Nuremberg thus offers a cautionary lesson. Collective criminality cannot be ignored in cases of system-wide atrocity, but legal techniques that sacrifice individualisation for efficiency carry significant legitimacy costs. The Tribunal’s experiments with conspiracy and organizational guilt were historically understandable responses to unprecedented crimes, yet their limited afterlife underscores the centrality of personal culpability as the organizing principle of international criminal law.

7. Procedural justice and due process under exceptional conditions

The legitimacy of the Nuremberg trials depended not only on the substantive crimes prosecuted but also on the credibility of the procedures through which guilt was determined. From the outset, the International Military Tribunal operated under conditions that departed sharply from domestic criminal justice models: the absence of an established procedural code, the political character of the Tribunal’s creation, and the unprecedented scale of the crimes under review. The procedural framework that emerged was therefore neither accidental nor purely expedient. It reflected a deliberate attempt to balance the demands of legality, efficiency, and historical record-making in an environment where ordinary procedural guarantees could not be fully replicated.

7.1 Evidentiary flexibility and its legal justification

One of the most striking features of the Tribunal’s procedure was its relaxed approach to evidence. The Charter authorised the admission of any evidence deemed to have probative value, without strict adherence to domestic rules on hearsay or formal proof. This flexibility was justified on practical grounds. The crimes under review were documented across multiple states, languages, and bureaucratic systems, and strict evidentiary formalism would have rendered prosecution unworkable.

The Tribunal relied heavily on captured German documents, official records, and contemporaneous reports. This documentary emphasizes reduced reliance on witness testimony and limited opportunities for narrative manipulation. It also reinforced the Tribunal’s claim to objectivity by grounding findings in the defendants’ own administrative and military records. At the same time, the absence of rigorous exclusionary rules raised concerns about reliability and the ability of the defence to challenge incriminating material effectively.

The legal justification advanced by the Tribunal was functional rather than principled. The evidentiary regime was presented as proportionate to the exceptional context and necessary to prevent procedural paralysis. The underlying assumption was that due process does not require identical procedures in all settings, but rather a fair opportunity to contest the case within the constraints imposed by circumstance.

7.2 Equality of arms and structural imbalance

Despite formal guarantees of defence rights, the proceedings exhibited clear asymmetries. The prosecution had access to vast documentary archives and investigative resources assembled by occupying authorities, while defence teams operated with limited time, restricted access to evidence, and significant logistical constraints. The Charter did not provide a robust mechanism to equalise these disparities.

The Tribunal addressed this imbalance rhetorically by emphasising the gravity of the crimes and the availability of defence counsel. Substantively, however, the structural advantages enjoyed by the prosecution remained. This imbalance was not accidental; it reflected the political reality that the Tribunal was established by the victors to adjudicate the actions of the defeated. The legal question was therefore not whether perfect equality existed, but whether the inequality rose to a level that undermined the fairness of the proceedings.

The Tribunal implicitly adopted a contextual standard of fairness. Defendants were informed of the charges, allowed to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and address the Tribunal. These core elements of adversarial process were treated as sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements of justice, even if procedural symmetry was lacking. This approach set a precedent for later international tribunals, which continue to struggle with resource disparities while insisting that fairness must be assessed in light of institutional constraints.

7.3 The right to a fair trial and its international articulation

The Nuremberg trials played a formative role in articulating the right to a fair trial at the international level. Although no comprehensive international human rights framework existed at the time, the Tribunal recognised that legitimacy depended on more than outcome. Procedural fairness was necessary to distinguish adjudication from political punishment.

The Tribunal’s understanding of fair trial rights was pragmatic. It did not derive from a codified catalogue of guarantees but from general principles common to major legal systems. These included notice of charges, representation by counsel, the opportunity to present a defence, and reasoned judgment. The absence of appellate review and the limited ability to challenge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction were acknowledged weaknesses, yet they were treated as acceptable given the exceptional mandate and temporary nature of the institution.

This pragmatic articulation influenced later codifications. The notion that individuals charged with international crimes are entitled to a fair trial on both facts and law became a core principle of international criminal justice. Nuremberg thus contributed to the emergence of procedural fairness as a legal requirement rather than a discretionary concession.

7.4 Judicial independence and political context

Questions of judicial independence were unavoidable given the Tribunal’s origins. Judges were appointed by the same governments that negotiated the Charter and directed the prosecution. The defence argued that this structure precluded impartial adjudication. The Tribunal responded by emphasising the professional status of its judges and the reasoned nature of its judgment.

While the political context cannot be ignored, the Tribunal’s conduct demonstrated an effort to exercise judicial restraint. Acquittals were entered, charges were dismissed, and sentences varied according to assessed culpability. These outcomes complicate narratives that reduce the proceedings to predetermined show trials. The Tribunal’s willingness to diverge from prosecutorial demands supported its claim to judicial character, even within a politicised framework.

The broader lesson is not that political context is irrelevant to judicial independence, but that independence exists on a spectrum. Under the circumstances of post-war Europe, the Tribunal operated at a constrained yet meaningful level of autonomy, sufficient to generate authoritative legal findings.

7.5 Procedural legacy and modern standards

The procedural model developed at Nuremberg was never intended as a permanent template. Its deficiencies, including limited appellate review and evidentiary looseness, were later addressed through more elaborate procedural codes in subsequent tribunals. Nonetheless, Nuremberg established baseline expectations: international criminal trials must provide reasoned judgments, recognise defence rights, and maintain a credible distinction between adjudication and political sanction.

The enduring relevance of the Nuremberg experience lies in its demonstration that procedural justice is not an all-or-nothing concept. Under exceptional conditions, due process can be adapted without being abandoned. The challenge for international criminal law has been to institutionalise those adaptations within more stable and comprehensive procedural frameworks. In that sense, Nuremberg stands as an early experiment in international due process, revealing both the minimum requirements of fairness and the dangers of allowing expediency to eclipse legality.

8. From judgment to norm: the Nuremberg Principles

The authority of the Nuremberg trials did not depend solely on the convictions entered by the International Military Tribunal. Their deeper and more enduring impact lay in the transformation of a single tribunal’s reasoning into general propositions of international law. This transition, achieved through institutional endorsement and doctrinal abstraction, converted the Nuremberg judgment from a historically contingent exercise of jurisdiction into a normative reference point. The Nuremberg Principles represent the mechanism through which this transformation occurred, marking the passage from adjudicated outcome to legal standard.

8.1 Institutionalisation through the United Nations system

The first step in this transformation was political and institutional rather than judicial. In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly affirmed the principles of international law recognised in the Charter and judgment of the International Military Tribunal. This affirmation did not create new law in a formal sense, but it signalled broad acceptance that the legal propositions articulated at Nuremberg were not confined to the defeated Axis powers. The endorsement mattered because it detached those propositions from the authority of the victors alone and re-presented them as expressions of the international community’s legal conscience.

The task of translating judicial reasoning into general legal norms was subsequently entrusted to the International Law Commission. In 1950, the Commission articulated seven principles distilled from the Nuremberg Charter and judgment. These principles addressed individual criminal responsibility, the irrelevance of domestic law, the rejection of official capacity and superior orders as defences, fair trial guarantees, and the classification of international crimes. The Commission’s approach was deliberately minimalist. Rather than reproducing the factual or procedural specifics of the trials, it extracted their normative core and framed it in abstract legal language suitable for general application.

This process reflected a conscious effort to stabilise the Nuremberg legacy without freezing it in its original institutional form. The Principles were designed to survive the disappearance of the IMT itself and to function independently of the political conditions that had enabled the trials.

8.2 Normative consolidation and selective abstraction

The formulation of the Nuremberg Principles involved significant acts of selection. Certain aspects of the Tribunal’s reasoning were elevated to general norms, while others were left behind. The most notable example concerns crimes against humanity. While the IMT had tied such crimes to a nexus with war, the International Law Commission’s formulation did not replicate that limitation with the same rigidity. The abstraction process thus began the gradual decoupling of crimes against humanity from armed conflict, even though that evolution would only be completed decades later.

Similarly, the Principles affirmed individual responsibility and the irrelevance of official position without reproducing the Tribunal’s more experimental doctrines, such as criminal organisations. What emerged was a streamlined normative framework centred on personal culpability rather than collective status. This selectivity suggests that the codification process was not merely descriptive but corrective, preserving those elements of Nuremberg most compatible with long-term legal development.

The abstraction also altered the epistemic status of the Tribunal’s holdings. Once reformulated as general principles, they could be cited and applied without constant reference to the exceptional circumstances of post-war Germany. This move enhanced their portability but also reduced their contextual richness. The Principles became building blocks for international criminal law, rather than a comprehensive account of how such law should be applied in practice.

8.3 Customary law and the problem of authority

A central question raised by the Nuremberg Principles concerns their legal status. The International Law Commission presented them as principles of international law recognised in the Charter and judgment, rather than as newly created rules. This phrasing reflected an attempt to avoid claims of legislative overreach. The Principles were framed as declaratory rather than constitutive.

In practice, their authority has rested on a combination of factors: the persuasive force of the IMT judgment, the institutional endorsement of the United Nations, and subsequent reliance by courts, tribunals, and commentators. This composite foundation illustrates a characteristic feature of international law, where normativity often emerges through cumulative acceptance rather than formal enactment.

At the same time, the Principles exposed the limits of customary reasoning. While individual responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity quickly gained widespread acceptance, crimes against peace remained contested. The reluctance of states to operationalise aggression as a prosecutable offence suggests that recognition in principle does not guarantee enforceability. The uneven uptake of the Nuremberg Principles thus highlights the distinction between normative endorsement and institutional commitment.

8.4 Influence on later international criminal jurisprudence

The practical significance of the Nuremberg Principles became evident in later international criminal proceedings. Ad hoc tribunals and hybrid courts repeatedly invoked the principles to justify jurisdiction over individuals, to reject immunity defences, and to affirm the irrelevance of domestic legality. The Principles provided a common doctrinal vocabulary that allowed different institutions to claim continuity with Nuremberg while adapting its logic to new contexts.

This influence was not mechanical. Later tribunals refined and sometimes narrowed the application of the Principles, particularly in relation to modes of liability and procedural guarantees. Yet the core propositions articulated by the International Law Commission proved remarkably durable. They functioned as a bridge between an exceptional post-war tribunal and a more institutionalised system of international criminal justice.

The Rome Statute system illustrates both the success and the limits of this legacy. Many of the Statute’s foundational assumptions reflect the Nuremberg Principles, especially the emphasis on individual responsibility and the irrelevance of official capacity. At the same time, the Statute’s detailed definitions and procedural safeguards reflect an effort to address concerns that Nuremberg had resolved only provisionally.

8.5 The Nuremberg Principles as a normative hinge

The lasting importance of the Nuremberg Principles lies in their role as a normative hinge between judgment and law. They did not simply memorialise the Tribunal’s conclusions; they transformed them into a framework capable of guiding future legal development. This transformation was neither neutral nor exhaustive. It involved choices about which aspects of Nuremberg should be universalised and which should remain historically bounded.

By abstracting individual responsibility from a specific tribunal and embedding it within the language of international law, the Nuremberg Principles ensured that the trials would function as more than a historical episode. They became a reference point against which later claims of accountability could be measured. At the same time, the selective nature of the abstraction reminds us that international criminal law advances through iterative correction rather than wholesale transplantation. The Principles capture Nuremberg’s normative core, but not its full complexity, and that tension continues to shape the field today.

9. The Nuremberg trials in later international criminal jurisprudence

Nuremberg’s legal influence on later international criminal jurisprudence is best measured by how later tribunals operationalised three propositions that were only partially stabilised in 1945–46: (i) individuals, not states, are the direct bearers of criminal responsibility for core international crimes; (ii) official capacity cannot function as a substantive shield; and (iii) mass atrocity requires liability concepts capable of capturing collective criminality without collapsing into guilt by association. Subsequent institutions largely accepted Nuremberg’s direction of travel, but they also narrowed, re-engineered, and proceduralised its doctrinal tools to reduce legality risk and to improve fairness.

9.1 ICTY: Nuremberg’s “individual accountability” logic, modernised

The ICTY repeatedly treated Nuremberg as an authority for the foundational claim that international crimes are enforced through individual punishment. In its appellate jurisprudence, the ICTY echoed the Nuremberg rationale that international law would be ineffective if it could not reach persons who commit or authorise atrocities, including where conduct is embedded in state or quasi-state structures (ICTY, 1999). The ICTY used that premise to support broad personal jurisdiction over serious violations and to confirm that individual responsibility attaches across the spectrum of armed conflict classifications, even when the conflict is non-international, where older treaty regimes were less explicit (ICTY, 1999).

At the same time, the ICTY’s most consequential “Nuremberg update” was its refined machinery for collective criminality. Nuremberg’s conspiracy model proved too elastic for later legality expectations, so the ICTY developed doctrines aimed at preserving a tighter relationship between individual contribution and group crime. The flagship example is joint criminal enterprise (JCE), articulated as a mode of liability designed to capture collective criminality while maintaining individual culpability through shared intent or foreseeable consequence standards (ICTY, 1999). This represented continuity in purpose with Nuremberg—capturing system-driven crime—combined with a recalibration of doctrinal form away from the Charter’s conspiracy-heavy framing.

On substantive norms, ICTY trial jurisprudence frequently built customary-law analysis in a way that relied on Nuremberg as a historical anchor rather than as the endpoint. In torture jurisprudence, the ICTY connected prohibition, definition, and individual liability to a trajectory of customary crystallisation, treating Nuremberg-era formulations as part of a longer chain of authority rather than as the sole source (ICTY, 1998). That method reflects a core post-Nuremberg jurisprudential move: tribunals justify criminalisation by demonstrating multi-source support—treaties, customary practice, general principles—thereby reducing the retroactivity critique that haunted crimes against peace.

9.2 ICTR: expanding the atrocity paradigm beyond Europe and beyond war-nexus logic

The ICTR’s jurisprudence confirmed that Nuremberg’s categories could be applied to different social and political contexts while also advancing doctrinal elements that Nuremberg left conditional or underdeveloped. The ICTR’s crimes against humanity jurisprudence, including its articulation of “widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population,” helped solidify a definition that no longer depended on a war nexus in the Nuremberg sense (ICTR, 1998). The Tribunal’s treatment of sexual violence as constitutive of genocide and crimes against humanity also showed how post-Nuremberg tribunals used the same structural framework while correcting historical blind spots in charging practice and legal characterisation (ICTR, 1998).

This mattered for Nuremberg’s legacy because it demonstrated that the concept of crimes against humanity could be generalised without the contextual scaffolding Nuremberg used to manage legality pressure. In effect, later jurisprudence preserved Nuremberg’s breakthrough—international criminalisation of mass violence against civilians—while removing the doctrinal constraint that had been used in 1945–46 to stabilise jurisdictional legitimacy.

9.3 Hybrid tribunals: the immunity principle tested against sitting leaders

Nuremberg’s rejection of immunity as a defence to international crimes became a central doctrinal inheritance, but later jurisprudence had to confront a harder case than Nuremberg faced: sitting heads of state and contemporaneous political power. The Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Appeals Chamber decision on Charles Taylor held that personal immunity does not bar prosecution before an international criminal tribunal (SCSL, 2004). The decision treated “official capacity irrelevance” as a structural necessity for international criminal justice, aligning with Nuremberg’s logic that the state cannot be used as a legal shelter for core crimes, even when the accused occupies the apex of governmental authority (SCSL, 2004).

The legal significance is not only the result, but the institutional framing. Post-Nuremberg jurisprudence increasingly distinguishes between (i) immunities operating in inter-state relations and domestic courts, and (ii) the inapplicability of such immunities before competent international criminal jurisdictions created by treaty or international mandate. That distinction operationalises Nuremberg’s collapse of substantive immunity defenses while acknowledging that jurisdictional immunities remain contested in other forums.

9.4 ICC: codification of Nuremberg’s core propositions, plus a new cooperation dilemma

The International Criminal Court system is where Nuremberg’s normative legacy is most visibly codified. Article 27 of the Rome Statute states that official capacity does not exempt a person from criminal responsibility and does not bar the Court’s jurisdiction (ICC, 1998). This is the clearest textual descendant of the Nuremberg principle that status cannot function as a shield.

Yet ICC practice also exposes a tension Nuremberg largely avoided because it operated under total victor control: cooperation. The Court’s jurisprudence has had to manage friction between Article 27 and cooperation provisions that can implicate third-state immunities in arrest and surrender contexts, a conflict that came to a head in litigation related to a non-party state head of state (ICC Appeals Chamber, 2019). The doctrinal point is that Nuremberg’s “no immunity” principle is easier to apply in a system with direct enforcement power than in a treaty-based court dependent on state cooperation. ICC jurisprudence, therefore, illustrates how Nuremberg’s substantive norm survives, but its practical effect is mediated by institutional design and geopolitical reality (ICC Appeals Chamber, 2019).

9.5 ECCC and legality discipline: re-reading Nuremberg through strict nullum crimen expectations

Later tribunals have also used Nuremberg as a starting point while applying a stricter legality discipline than the IMT could plausibly implement in 1945. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia examined crimes against humanity and modes of participation through an explicit legality lens, requiring that the relevant offences and liability forms be demonstrably established in applicable international law at the time of the charged conduct (ECCC, 2012). This approach does not reject Nuremberg; it reflects a post-Nuremberg institutional expectation that tribunals must show not only moral gravity and historical truth, but also contemporaneous legal grounding.

That shift is one of the most important jurisprudential evolutions after Nuremberg: later courts seek legitimacy primarily through legality proof and procedural rigour, not through the exceptional authority of political victory.

9.6 Net effect: continuity in fundamentals, divergence in techniques

Later international criminal jurisprudence broadly preserved Nuremberg’s core foundations—individual responsibility for core crimes and the irrelevance of official status—while significantly reworking the liability and procedural techniques used to attribute responsibility in mass-atrocity settings. Conspiracy and criminal-organization mechanisms largely gave way to more tailored doctrines for collective criminality; crimes against humanity evolved into a fully autonomous category; and legality scrutiny became more explicit and institutionally central. The result is a legal lineage in which Nuremberg operates less as a template and more as a foundational justification that later tribunals continuously refine to meet higher expectations of precision, fairness, and contemporaneous legal authority (ICTY, 1999; ICC, 1998; SCSL, 2004; ECCC, 2012; ICC Appeals Chamber, 2019).

Also Read

• The Evolution of Universal Jurisdiction in Human Rights Enforcement

• Crimes Against Humanity

• International Responsibility in Public International Law

• Evolution of the Law of Armed Conflict

• The Struggle for an International Constitutional Order

10. Critiques revisited: Victor’s justice and selective accountability

The charge that the Nuremberg trials represented victor’s justice has persisted as the most enduring critique of their legitimacy. It rests on an observable asymmetry: the Tribunal was created by the victorious Allied powers, applied jurisdiction exclusively to Axis leaders, and avoided scrutiny of conduct that might have implicated Allied decision-making. This asymmetry was not incidental. It was built into the institutional design of the International Military Tribunal and reflected the realities of post-war power rather than a neutral allocation of legal authority.

From a strictly legal perspective, selectivity does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings. Domestic criminal systems routinely exercise selective enforcement based on jurisdictional reach, evidentiary capacity, and prosecutorial discretion. International law, lacking centralized enforcement, magnifies these asymmetries. Nuremberg demonstrated that international criminal law can operate only where power permits enforcement, not where wrongdoing exists in the abstract. The legal question is therefore not whether enforcement was selective, but whether the norms applied were themselves legally cognisable and fairly administered within the chosen jurisdiction.

The Tribunal’s defenders argued that the existence of unpunished wrongdoing elsewhere does not negate the criminality of the acts prosecuted. Aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity did not cease to be unlawful because similar conduct by others escaped judgment. This position aligns with a core principle of legality: under-enforcement does not erase normativity. Yet this argument addresses legality more effectively than legitimacy. For many critics, the problem was not that the defendants were wrongly convicted, but that the scope of accountability was structurally incomplete.

The critique gains force when examining the exclusion of certain factual domains. Strategic bombing, population transfers, and conduct associated with colonial governance were absent from the Tribunal’s remit. These omissions reinforced perceptions that international criminal law was being constructed around a particular moral narrative rather than applied universally. At the same time, expanding jurisdiction to include such conduct in 1945 would likely have fractured the Allied consensus and undermined the feasibility of any trial at all. Nuremberg thus embodies a trade-off between legal ambition and political survivability.

Selective accountability also shaped the doctrinal content of the judgment. The Tribunal framed crimes in ways that avoided reciprocal exposure. Aggression was defined through reference to treaty violations that clearly implicated the Axis powers, while contested areas of the law of war were handled cautiously or excluded. This selectivity influenced which norms were consolidated and which remained underdeveloped. The legacy of that choice can be seen in the uneven maturation of international criminal law, where some crimes achieved rapid doctrinal clarity while others remained politically radioactive.

The victor’s justice critique therefore reveals a structural limitation rather than a procedural defect. Nuremberg operated in a system where power and law were inseparable, and its authority depended on the alignment of legal reasoning with the interests of those capable of enforcing judgments. This does not reduce the trials to mere political theatre, but it does situate them within a constrained normative environment. The Tribunal succeeded in establishing that international criminal adjudication was possible; it did not establish that it could be neutral.

Subsequent international criminal institutions have attempted to respond to this critique by embedding accountability within multilateral treaties, independent prosecutorial structures, and more universal jurisdictional claims. Yet selectivity has not disappeared. It has shifted form, moving from overt victor control to subtler mechanisms of jurisdictional limitation, cooperation dependence, and geopolitical veto. The persistence of selective accountability suggests that the Nuremberg problem was not unique to its historical moment but intrinsic to international criminal law’s reliance on state consent and enforcement capacity.

Revisiting the victor’s justice critique with historical distance allows for a more precise assessment. Nuremberg did not fail because it was selective; it succeeded despite being selective. Its legitimacy rests on the coherence of its legal reasoning and the fairness of its procedures toward those it judged, not on the unattainable standard of universal enforcement. The unresolved challenge it exposed is how international criminal law can move closer to universality without sacrificing the institutional viability that made Nuremberg possible in the first place.

11. Conclusion

The Nuremberg trials occupy a foundational yet unsettled position in the architecture of international criminal law. They were neither a mere historical anomaly nor a fully formed template for future adjudication. Instead, they functioned as a legal intervention under extreme conditions, forcing international law to confront crimes of a scale and nature that could no longer be absorbed within traditional doctrines of sovereignty and state responsibility. Their enduring significance lies in the doctrinal choices they compelled and the structural tensions they exposed.

At the core of the Nuremberg project was the relocation of criminal responsibility from abstract entities to individual decision-makers. By rejecting sovereign immunity, limiting obedience to orders, and affirming that international law imposes duties directly on persons, the Tribunal transformed accountability from a diplomatic aspiration into a legal mechanism. This shift redefined the relationship between power and law, making it possible to speak meaningfully of criminal responsibility at the highest levels of political and military authority. Subsequent international criminal jurisprudence has preserved this premise, even as it has refined the methods by which responsibility is attributed.

Equally important was the Tribunal’s engagement with legality. Nuremberg did not resolve the tension between normative development and retroactive punishment by strict formalism. It adopted a pragmatic approach grounded in foreseeability, treaty commitments, and the moral agency of the accused. This approach attracted criticism, particularly in relation to crimes against peace, but it also reflected the structural realities of an international legal order without a central legislature. Later institutions responded by tightening legal discipline through detailed treaty definitions and prospective jurisdiction, demonstrating that Nuremberg’s reasoning was a starting point rather than a final settlement.

The treatment of collective criminality further illustrates the experimental nature of the trials. Conspiracy and criminal organization doctrines were employed to capture system-wide wrongdoing, but revealed the risks of overreach and guilt by association. Their limited afterlife confirms that international criminal law ultimately anchored itself in individualized modes of liability, even while recognizing the importance of collective context. The field matured by retaining Nuremberg’s focus on leadership responsibility while abandoning some of its more blunt tools.

Procedurally, the trials showed that due process can exist under exceptional conditions without mirroring domestic criminal justice in every respect. The Tribunal’s willingness to provide defence rights, reasoned judgments, and public proceedings distinguished adjudication from political punishment, even as resource imbalances and evidentiary flexibility raised legitimate concerns. Later tribunals institutionalised higher procedural standards, but the baseline expectation that international criminal trials must be recognisably judicial can be traced directly to Nuremberg.

The critique of Victor’s justice remains unresolved, not because it invalidates Nuremberg’s legal reasoning, but because it highlights a persistent structural constraint. International criminal law operates in an environment where enforcement power is uneven, and accountability is necessarily selective. Nuremberg exposed this reality rather than creating it. The challenge it posed to future generations was not how to eliminate selectivity altogether, but how to manage it without collapsing legitimacy.

In the final analysis, the Nuremberg trials should be understood as constrained legal innovation. They succeeded in demonstrating that international law could respond to mass atrocity through adjudication rather than retribution, and that individuals wielding state power could be judged by legal standards beyond domestic authority. At the same time, they left open questions about universality, legality, and political influence that continue to shape international criminal justice. The enduring value of Nuremberg lies not in the perfection of its solutions, but in the clarity with which it defined the problems that international law still seeks to solve.

References

1. Bassiouni, M.C. (1999) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law. 2nd edn. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

2. Cassese, A. (2003) International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3. Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D. and Wilmshurst, E. (2019) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Hart, H.L.A. (1958) ‘Positivism and the separation of law and morals’, Harvard Law Review, 71(4), pp. 593–629.

5. International Criminal Court (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Rome.

6. International Criminal Court Appeals Chamber (2019) Judgment in the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal. The Hague.

7. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (1998) Prosecutor v Akayesu, Judgment. Arusha.

8. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1998) Prosecutor v Furundžija, Judgment. The Hague.

9. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1999) Prosecutor v Tadić, Appeals Chamber Judgment. The Hague.

10. International Law Commission (1950) Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II.

11. Jackson, R.H. (1949) The Nürnberg Case. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

12. Kelsen, H. (1947) ‘Will the judgment in the Nuremberg trial constitute a precedent in international law?’, International Law Quarterly, 1(2), pp. 153–171.

13. Koskenniemi, M. (2002) The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14. Kreß, C. (2018) ‘On the activation of ICC jurisdiction over the crime of aggression’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 16(1), pp. 1–17.

15. Overy, R. (2001) ‘The Nuremberg trials: international law in the making’, in Sands, P. (ed.) From Nuremberg to The Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.

16. Schabas, W.A. (2017) An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. 5th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17. Special Court for Sierra Leone Appeals Chamber (2004) Prosecutor v Charles Taylor, Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction. Freetown.

18. United Nations General Assembly (1946) Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. Resolution 95(I).

19. Wright, Q. (1947) ‘The law of the Nuremberg trial’, American Journal of International Law, 41(1), pp. 38–72.