Zorkin Reflects on Nuremberg’s Legacy and the Shadow Over The Hague

Dragon Media News Desk

Marking 80 years since the verdicts in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, Valery Zorkin, chairman of Russia’s Constitutional Court, has published an article examining the foundations and challenges of international criminal justice. He presents Nuremberg as a historic turning point that helped establish the basis for law and justice in the postwar world.

On October 1, 1946, the International Military Tribunal delivered verdicts against 22 leading Nazi defendants. Twelve were sentenced to death, three to life imprisonment and four to lengthy prison terms; three were acquitted. The Nuremberg Charter defined crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as principal categories of international criminal law.

According to Zorkin, Nuremberg’s lasting significance goes beyond punishing those responsible. He argues that the trials established the principle that law must stand above state power and military force, and that impunity for grave crimes against humanity is unacceptable. He also says that hearing victims’ evidence and testimony made the proceedings both an act of justice and an act of historical remembrance.

Zorkin acknowledges shortcomings in the tribunal’s establishment and the questions raised by applying some legal provisions retroactively. But he argues that Nuremberg’s legitimacy was grounded in the collapse of the Nazi state, the legal framework established by the Allies’ instrument of surrender, and universal values of natural justice. His argument also reflects the historical context in which the victorious powers created a new legal order after the war.

The article’s title suggests a comparison between Nuremberg’s legacy and questions surrounding international judicial institutions in The Hague. The excerpt available here does not specify which institutions or cases Zorkin addresses. His central argument, however, is clear: to maintain the credibility of international justice, the law must apply equally to all states and parties; selective justice can weaken its moral foundation.