International Military Tribunal Research Articles

Crimes against humanity: concepts and signs

The relevance of the article is obvious because the terrible crimes committed by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine shook not only Ukrainian society but also the whole world. Russian military personnel and their command commit large-scale and systematic attacks on the civilian population - brutal murders, torture, torture, rape, enslavement, extermination, deportations, imprisonment, the crime of apartheid and other illegal acts of a cruel nature directed against the people of Ukraine.
 The relevance of the study is also related to the fact that the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hereinafter - the Criminal Code of Ukraine) does not contain a definition of crimes against humanity, unlike other crimes such as military or war crimes. We will try to figure out how the actions of criminals will be qualified by Ukrainian courts and who will be held criminally responsible at the international level in the event that crimes against humanity are committed in Ukraine.
 «Crimes against humanity» as a separate group of crimes in international law was first reflected in the joint declaration of the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia on May 28, 1915 as a protest against the genocide committed by Turkey against the Armenian population. The result of the criminal events was the killing of more than a million people, prompting the international community to label this shameful act as a «crime against civilization and humanity» for which the leaders of the Turkish government should be held accountable.
 Crimes against humanity are crimes designed to destroy the very nature of man. These crimes are considered the most heinous crimes, because they mean deliberate mass killings either by the fact of the very existence of people (crimes against humanity) or by the fact of belonging to an ethnic or national group (genocide).
 In a number of international documents, such as: the Statute of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, article 6c; Charter of the International Military Tribunal in Tokyo, Article 5c; Law No. 10, adopted by the Control Council of the Allied Powers in Germany in 1945, Article II, 1c; UN Convention of December 9, 1948 on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide and its Punishment; Statutes of international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia, Art. 3-5 and Rwanda Art. 2-3; Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 7, such international crimes as crimes against humanity are reflected, from this it follows that universal jurisdiction extends to crimes against humanity.

Regime of military occupation, human rights, elections and referendums: case of Ukraine

From 2014 until today, parts of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhia regions of Ukraine are under international legal regime of military occupation. To realize one of its intentions - to change the territorial status quo by force of arms - Russia uses such tools as elections and referendums in the temporarily occupied parts of Ukraine. The article characterizes the legal regime of the military occupation, focuses attention on ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens and the legal regime on the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, emphasizes that the elections and referendums held by Russia have nothing to do with direct forms of democracy. These are legally invalid measures organized by the occupation administrations as an attempt to illegally annex Ukrainian territories by the Russian Federation. Their results do not have any legal consequences and cannot be accepted and recognized by the international community. Also focusing on the regime of military occupation, the authors of the article emphasize that occupation does not mean the loss of sovereignty of the occupied territory. Territorial supremacy of the state is directly related to state sovereignty and is one of its constituent elements. The occupation is characterized by the preservation of power structures and the continuation of resistance and military operations against the occupying state.
 The decisions of the UN International Court of Justice and the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) are analyzed. It is emphasized that the methods used by the Russian Federation to achieve the goal of including the territories of Ukraine, in which the Russian Federation held «referendums» and elections, were aggressive, the decisive factor was the military power of the Russian Federation, which came into force and met the resistance of sovereign independent Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. It is emphasized that Russia commits war crimes and uses «means of terrorism», one of which is the financing of so-called elections and referendums in the territories of Ukraine temporarily occupied by Russia. Ukraine carries out armed resistance to the inclusion of the territories of Ukraine in which the Russian Federation held «referendums» («referendums» in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk and Luhansk regions), reacts negatively to manifestations of territorial sovereignty on the part of the Russian Federation, and Ukraine also demonstrates by its behavior, that the referendums held by the Russian Federation in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhya, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions are unconstitutional, and their results and the acceptance of the territories of Ukraine into the Russian Federation do not have legal force.

The application of retroactive force of the criminal law in relation to the crime of genocide: international and national aspects

The subject of this study is genocide as a crime against the peace and security of mankind. The author raises the problem of the possibility of applying the retroactive force of the criminal law to an act of this kind, despite the absence of such a provision in article 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Special attention is paid to issues of international law, as well as judicial precedents related to the consideration of disputes on this issue. Considering the latter, the author subjects them to a deep systematic analysis for the possibility of initiating criminal proceedings and investigating crimes subject to qualification as genocide within the framework of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. The role of the International Military Tribunal for War Criminals of the European Axis Countries (Nuremberg Tribunal) in the formulation and subsequent consolidation of the norm of genocide is emphasized. In his research, the author uses such methods as historical, systemic, formal legal, comparative, as well as methods of analysis, deduction and formal logic. The author's special contribution to the consideration of this issue is the study of the historical and philosophical foundations, the moral and ethical side of giving retroactive force to the norms on genocide both from the point of view of international and from the point of view of national criminal law. The main result of the study is the author's conclusion about the possibility of applying the Genocide Convention retrospectively, as well as the need to consolidate in the legislation of the Russian Federation the provision on the need to make the criminal law retroactive in relation to crimes against the peace and security of mankind by amending part 2 of Article 10 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Expanding the definition of this norm would also simplify criminal procedural activities in the context of initiating criminal cases on these circumstances and their investigation.

Führerprinzip or 'I Was Following Orders' in Jus in Bello Era

In June of 1945, the International Military Tribunal (ITM) formed in London, faced the problem of a non-yet existing legal armor for the Nazi crimes. Two new rules were widely accepted there. First, a new category of war crimes, the “crimes against humanity” was legally defined. Second, the ex-ante rejection of the defense line “I was following orders” or Führerprinzip (the principle of the duty to obey every order given by the military leader). In the first part of this paper, I will present in brief, the historical and legal context of the rejection of Führerprinzip as a defense line of the Nazi defendants in Nuremberg trials as also in Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, where the same legal context was enacted. Next, I will expose a short history of conscientious objection in war ethics and the International Law on Human Rights that supports it. This exposition reveals that objection to criminal orders has the status not only of a right, but also of a duty for the soldiers on either side of the war. In the third part, the Rawlsian view on conscientious objector will be exposed as the meeting point of a broadly Kantian conception of war ethics and the existing International Law frame. In the final part I will present some philosophical aspects of jus in bello theory, as also the critique of its importance, and its contribution to the reification of the moral importance of conscientious objection in wartime and the rejection of Führerprinzip.

The Content and Function of Cosmopolitanism in a Selection of International Criminal Law Tribunals

Reasoning and justifications before the international criminal tribunals and courts (ICTs) have not always strictly kept to legal rules and/or legal standards. At times, philosophical structures were used directly in argument. Consequently, this article is, in particular, concerned with cosmopolitanism in arguments and judgments from a selection of counsel and judges emanating from the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals as well as the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It aims to provide an analysis of how the different generations of ICT and the different role-players therein used cosmopolitanism in their arguments. While not a treatise on cosmopolitanism as such, the article will identify and consider several broad cosmopolitan strands relevant to the selected arguments. The ensuing analysis will propose a taxonomy of specific arguments from the selected role-players addressing (1) the existence of a homogeneous civilisation and/or common morality as a descriptive truth or falsity, (2) the progressive realisation of the international society as a normative aspiration and (3) the relationship of the duty to the international community versus that owed to the domestic community of birth. Thereafter, the article will discuss plausible functions, in addition to persuasion, served by these arguments (including winning the case, undermining or supporting the legitimacy of the ICL proceedings in their entirety and/or controlling the subsequent historical narrative). Finally, the article will situate these investigations within the broader study of philosophy at the selected ICTs.

Prohibition of the glorification of the crimes condemned by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal of the European Axis Countries: problems of interpretation and law enforcement

The subject of this study is the criminal law prohibition of the approval of crimes condemned by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal of the European Axis countries. This act of glorifying of such crimes is an element of the objective side of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The methodology of the research consists of such methods as formal-legal, logical, systematic, as well as the method of analysis. The author emphasizes the importance of considering the aspects of the qualification of this act in the context of the development of the information society, since due to the active processes of digitalization, the present crime is often committed in the Internet environment. Special attention is paid to such a feature of the subjective side of the crime as its goal: the author argues about the need to consolidate the goal as a constructive feature of the subjective side of the considered corpus delicti. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that this norm is analyzed in relation to the constitutional principle of freedom of speech. The author comes to the conclusion that in this matter it is advisable to be guided by part 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which constitutional rights and freedoms can be restricted only to the extent necessary to protect the constitutional foundations and ensure the security of the state.

From War Crimes to Crimes against Humanity and Genocide: Turkish Responsibility after World War I

On 24 May 1915, the Triple Entente powers of Britain, France, and Russia issued a joint declaration that qualified the massacres, imprisonments and violence inflicted on the peaceful Armenian population as “crimes against humanity and civilization.” The concept of crimes against humanity was further developed and explained by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties (hereinafter: Commission), which was formed during the Paris Peace Conference to investigate violations of the laws and customs of war and prosecute war criminals. This article traces the evolution of discussions held within the Commission regarding the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Turkish government against its Armenian population, which technically fell outside the jurisdiction of the crimes specified in these talks, as the atrocities were committed not against the population of a belligerent state but, rather, against their own nationals. These discussions played a major part in the development of international criminal law; particularly of the concept of crimes against humanity. The Armenian Memorandum and the list of perpetrators of the Armenian atrocities were also presented to the Commission, which (together with other data and information collected) identified the crimes committed against the Armenian population by the Ottoman authorities, thus defining the concept of crimes against humanity and the acts that fell within its scope. Although post-World War I efforts for justice are generally assessed as a failed effort, crimes against humanity first materialized as a term in international law during this period and its development was based on the Armenian atrocities, which provided a critical basis for the International Military Tribunal's later convictions and contributed to the concept's evolution into its present-day significance.

Regarding the issue of international cooperation in against genocide (on the example of crimes committed by the russia against the ukrainian people)

In this scientific work, the authors made another attempt to consider the issue of genocide in international law. At the same time, today the issue of consideration of genocide on the territory of an independent, legal, democratic, social state with a market economy – Ukraine, which continues to be committed by the Russian Federation on the sovereign territories of the state, is quite relevant. Due to Russian aggression, the civilian population is dying on the territory of Ukraine. Every day, the Russian army attacks the critical infrastructure of Ukraine, which is damaged, leaving a large area without gas, heat, light, water, etc.
 In the scientific article, an attempt was made to consider the prospects for the prevention and countermeasures of genocide, the main influencing factors.
 In today’s conditions, the authors considered a number of international legal frameworks, in particular, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the Statute of the International Military Tribunal, the Geneva Conventions and Protocols adopted in 1977, 2005, etc., it can be confidently stated that the actions of the aggressor state can be qualified as committing genocide against the Ukrainian people.
 The scientific article states that institutions of international responsibility were created to prevent crimes of genocide: the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Tribunal in The Hague. The United Nations system as a whole, including all departments and specialized agencies, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Office of Legal Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs, the Department of Public Information, is expected to play an important role in preventing genocide, Department of Peacekeeping, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and some others.
 Let’s pay attention to the methods of recognition and identification of genocide, based on the above- mentioned institutions, and another attempt was made to consider in detail the legal definition of genocide as an international crime, the perspectives and at the same time the most problematic areas of genocide regulation were considered. We should also not forget about the official data on the number of victims due to aggression by the russia.

Crime of Aggression against Ukraine

Abstract In the discourse around prosecution of perpetrators of the crime of aggression against Ukraine, there is a need to consider the impact of Eastern European regional norms, both treaty-based and customary. This concerns both the interpretation of principles of responsibility for the crime of aggression as well as the modes of prosecution thereof. The article argues that, in Eastern Europe, the crime of aggression is a well-established norm of international and national law, and aggression — as a conduct by a state — is defined based on the principle of first use of force, while political, economic and any other justifications in order to avoid responsibility are disallowed. Individual responsibility for the crime of aggression represents a departure from the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute standard and is instead based on the International Military Tribunal’s Charter, which limits its scope to responsibility for a war of aggression. At the same time, it does not preclude, for example, prosecution of those responsible for the administration of occupied territories. As a consequence, the leadership clause might be understood as broader in comparison to the Rome Statute standards.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PUTIN AND THE AGGRESSOR RUSSIAN STATE FOR COMMITTED WAR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, TERROR AND GENOCIDE AGAINST UKRAINE AND THE WORLD

In the article, the author traces the fates of individual dictators and analyses the norms of international law, laws of war, and national legislation, which should be applied to putin to stop his international terrorist activities and the wars he unleashed, to save the world from a “madman with a nuclear button”. The history of the last hundred years shows that dictators' fates, like their characters, are very similar, and they usually end their lives tragically. Based on the analysis of the criminal activities of moscow aggressor state current political leadership, the author argues that the irreversibility of the punishment for war crimes, crimes against humanity, terror and genocide and that putin will inevitably appear before the Hague International Military Tribunal and will be justly sentenced to life imprisonment. On the basis of the analysis carried out and the given factual circumstances, the author ascertains the purposeful, deliberate, and systematic criminal activities of the current political leadership of the russian aggressor state against Ukraine and the civilized world, which are carried out in the form of war crimes, crimes against humanity, terror and genocide. It is stated that to effectively neutralize these international terrorists as soon as possible and to prevent further harmful and irreversible consequences of their criminal activities, the civilized world society should immediately apply against them the irreversibility of punishment, which is determined by the norms of both international and national law.

Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 1945 and the Formation of International Law

The article discusses the historical, legal and political significance of the organization and holding of the Nuremberg Tribunal as an international court, which for the first time demonstrated the possibility of implementing the norms of international law in relation to states that commit crimes against humanity. The theoretical and legal prerequisites and problems of holding the first in the history of an international court over a sovereign state, as well as certain aspects of the activities of the governments of the countries – leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition to overcome them, are considered in detail. The fundamental ideas of Western law of the Enlightenment are revealed, the development of which during the period of prosperity and crisis of industrial society determined the very possibility of the emergence of international law, fixing the universal values of the world community through the institution of human rights. The importance of the first international conventions that establish restrictions on states in the choice of means of warfare in the formation of the legal basis for the conviction at the international military tribunal of war criminals acting on behalf of their state during the Second World War is emphasized. The development of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, as the first international treaty concluded to bring to justice for crimes against peace, the rules of war and humanity, is characterized as a turning point in the development of international law, proving its effectiveness in the form of guaranteed punishment, regardless of the public status of the accused who were top officials of the Nazi state. The author comes to the firm conclusion that the development of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 1945 and the holding of the Nuremberg Tribunal on its basis were the results of political and legal compromises between the allies. The very fact of such compromises became a condition for the subsequent formation of international law as a contractual basis for the creation of a world community of nations, united by the value of the doctrine of human rights.

Ethics of research

Ethics of research

Genesis of legal cooperation of international criminal courts with states

We are examining the Institute of Cooperation between international criminal courts and states. By analyzing international legal doctrine, we have identified the main stages of development in international criminal justice. The influence of the humanist values of the 19th century and various pragmatic views and principles of international criminal law norms evolved as part of the international legal system, introducing prohibitions on certain criminal activities, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, is shown.The Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals were considered crucial benchmarks in the evolution of international criminal law. The International Military Tribunal for the Trial of Major War Criminals of European Countries has until now been created, as follows from Article 1 of the London Agreement, to try war criminals whose crimes are not connected to a specific geographical location, regardless of whether they are prosecuted individually or as members of organizations or groups, or in one or another capacity. It is shown that both Tribunals were historically necessary to carry out retribution for mass crimes committed by high-ranking military and civilian officials of Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II. It was noted that both Tribunals were subjected to fair criticism - both from the participants and later - for the legal imperfection of their institutional basis, selective administration of justice, and the retroactive effect of some essential material norms of criminal law.It was analyzed that the institution of cooperation was revealed in detail in the activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (from now on - ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (from now on - ICTR). Thus, the ICTY and ICTR were created based on resolutions of the Security Council, which, acting in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter, decided that states should fully cooperate with these bodies of international criminal justice.The Department of Private International Law is shown as one of the divisions of the International Court of Justice, which, among other things, “resolves extremely important and nowadays most relevant extradition disputes and tries political criminals and anarchists. It was emphasized that the court should be independent, both from the parties whose case it decides and from any political movements and opinions in general.

Conscription to Fight a War of Aggression under International Criminal Law

Abstract The criminalization of the unlawful use of force in international relations is not usually linked to conscription of an army to fight such a war. However, historical precedent in the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals established that conscription was part of the common plan to wage a war of aggression. After a brief history of conscription and its justifications, this article examines that precedent and then analyses how it could be put to use in a prosecution of the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Finally, it argues that there is a normative case for the inclusion of conscription within the scope of the crime of aggression because of the harm done to both the conscripts and the state and people of the place they invade.

The Decades-Long Struggle of ‘Comfort Women’ for Justice

During World War II, several thousands of women were forced into sexual slavery, known as ‘comfort women’, by the Imperial Japanese Army in comfort stations throughout Asia. After the war, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was established in 1946 to prosecute the Japanese war criminals, however, it was the ‘victor’s justice’ and failed to adequately prosecute crimes related to the ‘comfort women’. The truth of ‘comfort women’ remained untold in public until the victims started to speak about their experiences at the establishment of the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan. Kim Hak-soon, a Korean ‘comfort women’, was testified about her experiences, and it resulted in encouraging other ‘comfort women’ to share their own experiences in 1990s. On the other hand, the Japanese government has continuously denied state responsibility for the ‘comfort women’. In addition, between 1991 and 2001, the ‘comfort women’ from South Korea, China, the Philippines, Taiwan and the Netherlands filed 10 trials against the Japanese government in Japanese courts, however, all the cases were eventually dismissed. In 1996, the Japanese government established an Asian Women’s Fund to provide compensation, medical welfare and letters of apology to the ‘comfort women’, however, the Fund has been criticised by the United Nations due to the lack of the admission of state responsibility. The debate over the ‘comfort women’ lasting to date has shown the complexity of the legal and political issues, causing continuing sufferings to the ‘comfort women’. This research will analyse the historical context of the ‘comfort women’ to identify the reason why these victims are still not able to obtain their rights to reparation and an effective remedy. It will also examine to what extent the development of international law on sexual slavery can contribute to enhance the right to justice and the right to reparation of the ‘comfort women’. I argue that the Japan’s acknowledgement of violations of international law and the inclusion of a victim-oriented and gendered approach into the reparations are crucial.

Stalin’s Creation & Jackson’s Contribution

Interest in the Nuremberg trials is booming once again. Soviet Judgment at Nuremberg—by Francine Hirsch, Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison—is about the Soviet role in the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg. The book has acquired new relevance since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 in violation of international law. Strikingly, not only have the Ukrainian government, and some Western politicians and scholars of international law floated the idea of a new Nuremberg Tribunal, Russian Duma members have as well. Writing recently in Time magazine, Hirsch argued that indicting Vladimir Putin and leading Russian politicians for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression would require the creation of an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal or Special Tribunal. Such an indictment, however, should not have a political character, Hirsch points out, but such a trial would offer the possibility of creating a “complete historical record.” A “Nuremberg 2.0” organized by the Russian government would be a “dark alternative” in Hirsch’s eyes. She writes in Time magazine: “This would inevitably be a Soviet-style show trial—a kangaroo court that would degrade international law and could taint the meaning of Nuremberg forever.”1 This viewpoint—that the Soviet Union was fixed on political show trials much as the Putin government may be today—is reflected in Hirsch’s book. However, Hirsch also suggests that international criminal trials always have a political character or partisan interest that must be considered ambivalently: in a positive light, because there is a didactic goal in coming to terms with the past through criminal proceedings; and in a negative light, because impartiality is questionable if the crimes of only one warring party are tried.

Tribunal for the Russian Aggression in Ukraine: The Need for Accountability

The Russian aggression against Ukraine has raised the need for accountability and international rule of law. Russia through committing the supreme international crime has deliberately violated basic international principles and norms such as state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and the prohibition of the use of force. Member states of the United Nations drafted and agreed to create the International Criminal Court to punish the most serious crimes. The Kampala amendments of the Rome Statute on aggression, adopted a decade later, can be activated if the two states concerned have accepted ICC jurisdiction. Russia and Ukraine are not members of ICC, although the unilateral declarations of Ukraine accepting ICC jurisdiction can be exercised for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the territory of Ukraine. The lack of an international mechanism to punish the crime of aggression against Ukraine have triggered calls and actions to create a special tribunal with a limited focus on that crime, based on the development of international criminal law over the past eighty years. The EU recently agreed to establish an International Center for the prosecution of the crime of aggression – to preserve evidence and prepare the analysis of the evidence for the prosecution for future national or international trials – which is considered a first step in that direction. This research will analyze options to create either a special international tribunal or a hybrid tribunal to investigate whether Russia’s acts of violence in Ukraine constitute a crime of aggression and their prosecution. It will examine the legal basis of its establishment and functioning of the tribunal based on previous precedents, such as the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), or other specialized courts integrated in a national justice system with international judges – hybrid court. It will also explore the indispensable role of the United Nations in establishing such a tribunal and its implications in ending the conflict.
 
 Received: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 March 2023 / Published: 20 March 2023

THE FUNCTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST CRIMES

Humankind had to wait for the shock of the dramatic events and gross violations of human rights in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for the international community to accept the idea of establishing a permanent international criminal court, which was established after the obstacles and criticisms leveled at the international military tribunals of Nuremberg 1945 AD and Tokyo 1946 AD, and the Special International Criminal Courts for the former Yugoslavia 1993 AD and Rwanda in 1994; Which centered its foundation around its submission to the logic of control, power and inequality. On this basis, the international community intensified efforts to reach the endorsement of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, In addition to punishing the perpetrators of human rights violations and preventing crimes in the future, the court sets principles with regard to reparation for the damages suffered by the victims or in relation to them, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation, by establishing a trust fund for the benefit of the victims in the crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the court and for the benefit of the families the victims. The study adopted the historical approach, the comparative analytical approach, and the descriptive approach in order to stand on the historical development of the efforts of the International Criminal Court in protecting and promoting human rights, as well as tracking the efforts and studies that accelerated the achievement of this goal, as well as analyzing and scrutinizing opinions and positions in the light of the rules of international law and decisions of international legitimacy

Nyurnbergskij epilog: fashizm pered sudom mirolyubivyh narodov

The study is an attempt to show one of the greatest tragedies of mankind of the 20th century the Second World War in the light of today's realities. History knows many examples of cruelty and inhumanity of bloody crimes, but never before have atrocities and atrocities been committed on such a scale as the fascists did in 1941-1945. The article analyzes the history of fascism: its nature, genesis, triumph, defeat, crimes, the verdict of the International Military Tribunal.

War crimes; International Military Tribunal: Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg Trials were a set of judicial processes conducted after World War II to prosecute Nazi leaders and other individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These trials took place in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, between 1945 and 1946. The trials were set up by the Allies (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union) with the aim of holding Nazi leaders accountable for their atrocities during the war, including the Holocaust and other crimes committed against millions of people. The aim of this research is to describe through a descriptive-qualitative mythology the impact that these trials had after the Second World War.