To Punish Or Not To Punish: The Nuremberg Conundrum
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 day ago
- 1 min read
Rashi Chauhan, O.P. Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the legal complexities of the Nuremberg Trials, focusing on the intersection of three prominent jurisprudential theories: Legal Positivism, Natural Law, and Legal Realism. It studies the tension between the legal legitimacy of Nazi actions under German law and the moral imperative to address atrocities through international legal frameworks. Legal Positivism, with its emphasis on state sovereignty, struggled to reconcile with the universal moral standards upheld by Natural Law, which argued for a higher moral order beyond national law. Meanwhile, Legal Realism contended that the trials were not merely legal proceedings but politically motivated acts of "victor's justice," shaped by the power dynamics of the Allied powers. The paper further investigates the Nuremberg principles, such as individual responsibility and the doctrine of crimes against humanity, and their lasting impact on contemporary international law, including the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Ultimately, the trials underscored the enduring challenge of balancing law and morality, raising questions that continue to resonate in modern legal and political discourse.
