Study Guides (248,454)
Canada (121,548)
Law (393)
LAWS 2105 (5)
all (2)

LAWS 2105 Exam Study Guide.doc

14 Pages
Unlock Document

LAWS 2105
All Professors

Essay Answers3Danilo Zolos argument with respect to the Nuremberg tribunal are summed up in histhree main criticisms of the Nuremberg Tribunal which are that the tribunal was more political than legal the outcome of the tribunal was predetermined and violated habeas corpus since the principle of equality before the law was violated because the Allies selected the officials who would receive certain punishments through arbitrary criteria such as their military rank or political status under the Nazi regime and the rule of law was also violated Zolos third criticism of the tribunal was the philosophy of the punishment that was evident in it through expiation and retribution that was shown throughout the tribunal Zolo argued that the only goal of the tribunal was to punish the Nazis for their aggressive warfareagainst the Allies and Zolo also claims that punishment was the only effect that the tribunal had Otto Kirchheimer had four criticisms of the Nuremberg tribunal and they consisted of the sanction of legal order and thelaws in the tribunal being retroactive prejudicial court decisions and how the tribunal had many characteristics of a show trial such as declaring all the evidence of the defence inadmissible binding orders and necessity in which he stated that only low rank soldiers had to follow order in fear of repercussionsand he also criticized the fact that the Nazi officials were being charged on new crimes that the Allied forced had also committed and in some cases even more aggressively than the Nazi regime itself he used the term Tu Quoque which is Latin for you too to describe this issue What were the defence arguments against the justice of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the charges against the accused and what is Kirchheimers evaluation of each argumentThe defence arguments or as Kirchheimer called them rejoinders were 1 The sanctions of legal order 2 Binding orders and necessity 3 The prejudicial court and 4 Tu Quoque In response to the first defence argument that was brought up Kirchheimer states that although the crimes that the Nazis were committing were legal under the Nazi regime this defence cannot be used because the crimes do not have legal validity because these crimes were inhumaneKirchheimer claims that the Nazi law that allowedthe crimes to occur clearly violated the international principle of minimum standards and therefore it could not be used as a defenceIn regards to the second argument Kirchheimer claims that only the low rank soldiers had to follow orders unconditionally because their survival would be at risk if they did not while higher level soldiers and command relations were not forced to follow formal rules and regulations and had more freedom in regards to how they achieved the goals of their organizationHe also argues that only when the regime became desperate and nearing defeat would it react harshly to any deserters but since these Nazi officials could have left the regime earlier and decided not to then they cannot use binding orders and necessity as a defence The third argument by the defence discusses the prejudicial court and the notion of the outcome of the tribunal having already been decided before the tribunal had taken place This defence falls within the category of victors justice and aims to label Nuremberg as a show trial merely for propaganda purposes which is what the USSR would have preferred the tribunal to be used for Kirchheimer argues that inall political trials thesuccessor regime trials are a form of victors justice and basically downplays this argument by the defence He also claims that even if an indigenous German tribunal had been set up with a mix of neutral judges the outcome would not have been different thThe 4 argument by the defence was the the Allies were guilty of some of the same war crimes that the Nazi regime had committed and the defence of Tu Quoque was raised Kirchheimer raises the claim that the Tu Quoque argument could be raised against any type of terrestrial justiceand also states that judges who decide the trial will have to way this
More Less

Related notes for LAWS 2105

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.