The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1946 THE NUREMBERG VERDICTS

Wanganui Chronicle, 3 October 1946, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1946 THE NUREMBERG VERDICTS

yilK verdicts promulgated by the International Court at Nuremberg are important, not only to those who stood trial as prisoners, but also to the average citizen of every civilised community, l atently a new step forward is being taken in the development of the rule of law.

The first important point to observe is not that some of the accused have been sentenced to be hanged and that others have been acquitted, tilal as these things are to those most concerned. For the peaceful citizen the important point about these trials is that they are strictly legal tribunals, applying well-known legal concepts to the conduct of men who were engaged in running a sovereign State. An international tribunal has been set up for the purpose of judging the conduct of men for crimes against not the “State,’' but against “civilisation.’' The conception that an individual is a subject of a king or other ruling authority and owes allegiance to that ruler only, has been thrown to the discard. Eveiy man and woman to-day has a wider conception of law to take into account which concept transcends national allegiance. There appears here to be a contradiction of two legal concepts: one, if a man is a national and obeys the lawful commands of his riders it is his ruler’s fault and not the subject’s if harm ensues from national policy; two, every individual owes an allegiance to the general community known conveniently as civilisation, which allegiance he may not violate save at his peril. The one’ or the other eoneept seemingly must prevail to the exclusion of the other. The proposition that a subject is not to be held culpable for obeying lhe lawful commands of his ruler is of long-standing. The proposition that an individual owes allegiance to humanity as a whole is new to legal science. This is natural enough, for the first proposition arises out of the action of State legislatures or of regal fiats which authorities demand allegiance and afford protection to the citizens. The one duty is necessary if the benefit is to be sustained.

There is no international legal body to legislate to tell the individual what arc his duties to the human family which is known as “civilisation.’’ If there is no obligation to obey an nternational code it does not matter much whether or not an international code of conduct exists in the legal sense. Tn truth it does not so exist. Is the world to wait for an international code to be adopted before it brings wrongdoers on the world stage to account? The world has decided that such a long delay is not to be allowed. The press of public opinion has been too strong to permit of preciseness in this matter to interfere with what the world deems to be the punishment of wrongdoing on a large scale, (lone is the doctrine that the King can do no wrong, (lone, too, is the right ot the subject to claim that in carrying out the lawful commands of his superiors he is absolved from penalties arising out of such actions. Legality is no more than properly established and recognised public opinion.

In the present state of legal development it would be an easy matter for a tribunal to give way to its feelings and indulge in conduct ot revenge. There is probably not. one, man who stood trial at Nuremberg who could be claimed to be free from guilt in furthering Hiller’s nefarious schemes. To have made a sweeping condemnation of all of the accused would probably have achieved a rough justice, but that course was neither sought nor followed.

The approach to the problem on the part of the International Court is of particular interest. It had Io make a decision which stream of legal development it would adopt: lhe Roman or the English. Cutler the former the accused on trial is put to an inquisition; under the latter it is the .prosecutor who must establish the guilt of the accused. A revengeful prosecutor would naturally seek all the advantages of the Roman conception of the administration of justice, yet despite the greater portion of the European Continental systems springing from the Roman font it was English procedure which was adopted, the accused being given the favoured position. The British system arose out of the English common law, which had its roots in the distant past and was fashioned by practical men living in the manors and hundreds of England. It is of the earth earthy and it has prevailed over the work of the Roman Emperors and Senates. It seems natural to Englishmen that such a procedure as was adopted at Nuremberg should spring out of the Common Law of England, but the procedure does not seem Io be so natural to every individual in Europe. In view of this divergence of view it is remarkable that the verdict which the Court reached was a unanimous one.

The legal implications of the Nuremberg trials are likely to be far reaching. y "lain lines of these implications may now be seen, but whet "~I’» .y will lead to is not yet discernible. They will have to lie nor ed under varying circumstances before full experience will be gained of their suitability for lhe future in the international field.