Page 58 [58]
OCR
VIOLETA BESIREVIÉ crimes.$ AIl other non-legal aspirations are notably missing. Was that the sign that lessons were learned and that associating non-legal purposes, like peacebuilding or reconciliation, with international justice mechanisms impeded international criminal justice rather than advanced it? To explore the issue, I will pit the Nurnberg “International” Military Tribunal (IMT) mandate against the ICTY mandate. I have deliberately decided to compare the two legacies, not only because I am emotionally attached to the region of the former Yugoslavia, but also because the ICTY was the first modern tribunal established after the Nuremberg. An additional reason also urges parallel assessment of their mandates — the criticisms leveled against the IMT and the ICTY were to some extent the same, in the sense that they were ad hoc bodies designed to administer justice selectively.’ ACCOMPLISHED MISSIONS: INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALIZATION OF ATROCITIES Much ink has been spilled in regards to the Nuremberg trail. On many occasions, the Nuremberg legacy has been subjected to methodical evaluation that resulted in divided opinions on almost every aspect of the trial.’ For some, Nuremberg was a great success, a milestone in international criminal law. To its critics, Nuremberg was a failure, a mere victor’s justice in which ex post facto substantive rules were applied under novel jurisdictional theories.’ There are conflicting views on whether the trial was procedurally fair." There is much to be said about the Nuremberg trial, but this chapter’s space and purpose do not allow me to assess all aspects of the trial deeply. Instead, I will focus on the predominant concern of this chapter — the IMT mandate and the issue of what Nuremberg was about. ° See the Preamble of the Rome Statute. 7 Claus Kress, The International Criminal Court as a Turning Point in the History of International Criminal Justice, in Antonio Cassese (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, 143-159. The scholarship on the Nuremberg trial and the IMT is immense. I would like to draw attention to the 1995 New York Law School Journal of Human Rights symposium: Panel I: Telford Taylor Panel: Critical Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trials, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights 12 (1995), 453-544; Donna E. Arzt, Nuremberg, Denazification and Democracy: The Hate Speech Problem at the International Military Tribunal, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights 12 (1995), 689-758. See discussion of Jonathan Bush in Panel I: Telford Taylor Panel: Critical Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trials, 461. 10 Arzt, Nuremberg, Denazification and Democracy, 702. +56 +
