By: Iva Vukusic,
International Judicial Monitor
Correspondent in The Hague
Prosecutors
at international and hybrid tribunals and practitioners, scholars, and
advocates gathered in Nuremberg, Germany, in late September, 2016 to mark the
70th anniversary of the landmark judgment of the International
Military Tribunal (IMT) that followed the end of the Second World War. The judgment
in this groundbreaking trial was delivered on October 1, 1946. The Supreme
Court Justice and American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson put in memorable words
the significance of the Tribunal that are so often quoted, when affirming the
decision of the Allies to “stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit
their captive enemies to the judgment of law”. The trial was an expression of
that firm belief that law must impose limits on power, and that instead of
revenge, criminal proceedings will take place against those deemed most responsible
for the suffering caused by the murderous campaign unleashed in Europe by the
Third Reich.
Prosecutors
from institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (ICTR) and the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT),
the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)
and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) have been
gathering for ten years at the annual meetings called the International
Humanitarian Law Dialogues. The Dialogues in Nuremberg focused on the legacy of
the IMT and the challenges for the fight against impunity today.
The prosecutors, former United
States Ambassadors-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp and David Scheffer, scholars such as William
Schabas and John Barrett - they all discussed the legacies of the Nuremberg
trial, the problems, expectations and accomplishments of the IMT and subsequent
trials and what impact they had on German society and more broadly,
international law. They reflected on how international criminal law and courts
changed over the past seventy years and what the most serious challenges are to
the current efforts to fight impunity. Part of the program was held in the
iconic Courtroom 600, where the IMT trial against the senior Nazis was held,
and which continues to be a functional courtroom. It was there that ICC Chief
Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda spoke about the responsibility of the international
community and states around the world to address atrocity crimes. Bensouda
delivered a passionate message about the importance of leaders committing to
respecting the law and pursuing accountability for the most serious offences.
It
was made clear in a number of discussions how the Nuremberg trial was made
possible because it was a unique moment in history that allowed a significant
leap forward. In that moment, leaders of victorious powers decided that senior
officials of defeated Germany would stand trial, instead of facing a firing
squad. The experts agreed – the IMT proceedings, and the judgment, were not
perfect – but they were solid and they created an important historical record
for subsequent generations to study. Another unique moment in history was in
the early 1990s, when political circumstances made the establishment of the
ICTY and ICTR possible. The members of the United Nations Security Council, the
establishing body of the two ad hoc tribunals, and in particular its
veto-holding powers, agreed to the establishment of institutions to investigate
and prosecute crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. That is the
sort of agreement that is lacking in Syria – the enthusiasm and political will
that existed in the 1990s is simply not there.
The
roundtable with international prosecutors discussed obstacles in the way of
seeking accountability in Syria, a country that has been engulfed in horrific
violence for over five years, and