KnowraNuremberg principlesLinked fromLinked fromThe 28 pages that link to Nuremberg principles, each with the reason it gives.All 28Broader topic 3Related 22Narrower topic 2Compared with 1Nuremberg TrialsBroader topic: The trials articulated these principles through prosecutions and judgments.DenazificationRelated: Postwar prosecutions helped establish legal ideas distinct from denazification’s broader screening measures.International criminal lawRelated: They distilled rules asserted in the postwar prosecutions into broader legal principles.International Military TribunalBroader topic: The United Nations later distilled the judgment’s legal principles into this set.Nuremberg CharterNarrower topic: The Charter’s rules became a foundation for principles applied beyond the original tribunal.International Military Tribunal for the Far EastCompared with: The Tokyo tribunal applied related postwar principles, while developing its own record and legal reasoning.ObedienceRelated: They reject obedience as a complete defense for participation in international crimes.Robert H. JacksonBroader topic: Jackson’s case helped establish that leaders could be held personally accountable under international law.Crime against peaceNarrower topic: The offense helped establish that leaders could face international prosecution for state policy.Crime of aggressionRelated: They affirmed individual responsibility for aggressive war under international law.Hague ConventionsRelated: Postwar prosecutions treated violations of established laws of war as individual crimes.My Lai massacreRelated: Debate over following orders at My Lai echoed these principles of individual responsibility.Eichmann trialRelated: They framed the trial’s disputes over personal responsibility and retroactive punishment.Hans FrankRelated: Frank’s conviction exemplified the rejection of official position as a defense.War of aggressionRelated: They established that leaders could be personally responsible for aggressive war.Arthur Seyss-InquartRelated: His conviction reflected the principle that official position does not erase personal criminal responsibility.Class A war crimesRelated: They carried the postwar tribunals’ rejection of immunity for official acts into later law.Conscientious objectorRelated: They raise questions about when moral duty may require refusing unlawful military orders.Einsatzgruppen TrialRelated: The trial applied individual criminal responsibility to mass murder committed under state authority.Wilhelm KeitelRelated: The judgment against Keitel exemplified these principles in the prosecution of military leaders.Judgment at NurembergRelated: They clarify the film’s dispute over whether official duty excuses criminal conduct.Jus ad bellumRelated: The Nuremberg trials treated aggressive war as an international crime.Nuremberg executionsRelated: The executions gave a concrete outcome to the tribunal's claim that individuals could be punished under international law.Wehrmacht war crimesRelated: Postwar proceedings established that military orders did not automatically excuse criminal conduct.Otto OhlendorfRelated: His conviction applied individual criminal responsibility to participation in state-organized mass murder.Alfred JodlRelated: The tribunal applied these principles to reject the idea that official position erased personal responsibility.Geoffrey LawrenceRelated: The tribunal’s proceedings under Lawrence helped give these principles their authoritative form.Ben FerenczRelated: His prosecution relied on the principle that individuals could be held responsible for atrocities.
KnowraNuremberg principlesLinked fromLinked fromThe 28 pages that link to Nuremberg principles, each with the reason it gives.All 28Broader topic 3Related 22Narrower topic 2Compared with 1Nuremberg TrialsBroader topic: The trials articulated these principles through prosecutions and judgments.DenazificationRelated: Postwar prosecutions helped establish legal ideas distinct from denazification’s broader screening measures.International criminal lawRelated: They distilled rules asserted in the postwar prosecutions into broader legal principles.International Military TribunalBroader topic: The United Nations later distilled the judgment’s legal principles into this set.Nuremberg CharterNarrower topic: The Charter’s rules became a foundation for principles applied beyond the original tribunal.International Military Tribunal for the Far EastCompared with: The Tokyo tribunal applied related postwar principles, while developing its own record and legal reasoning.ObedienceRelated: They reject obedience as a complete defense for participation in international crimes.Robert H. JacksonBroader topic: Jackson’s case helped establish that leaders could be held personally accountable under international law.Crime against peaceNarrower topic: The offense helped establish that leaders could face international prosecution for state policy.Crime of aggressionRelated: They affirmed individual responsibility for aggressive war under international law.Hague ConventionsRelated: Postwar prosecutions treated violations of established laws of war as individual crimes.My Lai massacreRelated: Debate over following orders at My Lai echoed these principles of individual responsibility.Eichmann trialRelated: They framed the trial’s disputes over personal responsibility and retroactive punishment.Hans FrankRelated: Frank’s conviction exemplified the rejection of official position as a defense.War of aggressionRelated: They established that leaders could be personally responsible for aggressive war.Arthur Seyss-InquartRelated: His conviction reflected the principle that official position does not erase personal criminal responsibility.Class A war crimesRelated: They carried the postwar tribunals’ rejection of immunity for official acts into later law.Conscientious objectorRelated: They raise questions about when moral duty may require refusing unlawful military orders.Einsatzgruppen TrialRelated: The trial applied individual criminal responsibility to mass murder committed under state authority.Wilhelm KeitelRelated: The judgment against Keitel exemplified these principles in the prosecution of military leaders.Judgment at NurembergRelated: They clarify the film’s dispute over whether official duty excuses criminal conduct.Jus ad bellumRelated: The Nuremberg trials treated aggressive war as an international crime.Nuremberg executionsRelated: The executions gave a concrete outcome to the tribunal's claim that individuals could be punished under international law.Wehrmacht war crimesRelated: Postwar proceedings established that military orders did not automatically excuse criminal conduct.Otto OhlendorfRelated: His conviction applied individual criminal responsibility to participation in state-organized mass murder.Alfred JodlRelated: The tribunal applied these principles to reject the idea that official position erased personal responsibility.Geoffrey LawrenceRelated: The tribunal’s proceedings under Lawrence helped give these principles their authoritative form.Ben FerenczRelated: His prosecution relied on the principle that individuals could be held responsible for atrocities.