The world is experiencing a new era of impunity 80 years after the Nuremberg trials – EL PAÍS English

The Nuremberg Legacy and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 16

Foundational Principles for Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The trials conducted in Courtroom 600 of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice between 1945 and 1946 established a foundational framework for international criminal justice. This initiative, though historically recent, directly supports the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. The core concept, referred to as the “Nuremberg Idea,” posits that individuals must be held accountable for international crimes, irrespective of their status or location. This principle is a direct antecedent to SDG 16.3, which seeks to promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all.

The tribunal was established by four victorious nations—the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France—to prosecute crimes deemed so “devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored.” This commitment to legal judgment over vengeance, as articulated by U.S. chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, represents a significant tribute of “Power to Reason” and a critical step toward building the effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions called for in SDG 16.

Historical Evolution of International Justice in Pursuit of SDG 16

The Nuremberg trials marked the beginning of a prolonged effort to institutionalize global justice. The subsequent evolution of this framework can be traced through several key milestones that have shaped the landscape for achieving sustainable peace.

1. The Nuremberg Trials (1945-1949): For the first time, high-ranking state officials were tried by an international tribunal for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
2. Adoption of Universal Declarations (1948): The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, codifying the principles of Nuremberg into international law.
3. National Trials and Confronting History: Beginning in the late 1950s, national trials in Germany and elsewhere (e.g., Adolf Eichmann in 1961, Klaus Barbie in 1987) demonstrated the domestic application of international justice principles, a key component of strengthening national institutions under SDG 16.a.
4. Establishment of Modern Tribunals (1990s): In response to massacres in the Balkans and Rwanda, the international community established International Criminal Tribunals, reviving the momentum for global accountability.
5. The International Criminal Court (ICC): The creation of the ICC institutionalized a permanent body to investigate and prosecute the most serious international crimes, representing the contemporary embodiment of the Nuremberg spirit.

Contemporary Challenges to Achieving SDG 16

Persistent Gaps in Global Accountability Mechanisms

Despite the institutional progress since Nuremberg, the edifice of international justice faces severe challenges. Ongoing conflicts and massacres with impunity across the globe, from Ukraine to Sudan and the Middle East, underscore the difficulty in fully realizing SDG 16.1, which aims to significantly reduce all forms of violence. Jurist Philippe Sands notes that for victims of these horrors, international law “hasn’t done much,” indicating that the system has not been able to prevent atrocities in the modern era. This highlights a critical implementation gap between the legal frameworks and their effectiveness on the ground.

Addressing Inequalities in International Law (SDG 10 & SDG 16)

A primary dysfunction of the international justice system, traceable to its origins in Nuremberg, is the perception of an “imbalance” of power, often termed “victor’s justice.” This challenge directly impacts SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) within the context of global governance.

• The system was initiated by victorious powers, a dynamic that persists today.
• Major global powers have engaged in military actions, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, without facing equivalent scrutiny from international legal bodies.
• While leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu face warrants from the ICC, the likelihood of their prosecution remains low, exposing a disparity in accountability for powerful state actors.
• This imbalance undermines the universal application of the rule of law, a central tenet of SDG 16.3.

The Enduring Relevance of the Nuremberg Principles for the 2030 Agenda

Upholding the Rule of Law Against Impunity

While the current political climate makes the application of international justice difficult, its legal and moral foundations remain critical to the 2030 Agenda. The existence of institutions like the ICC and conventions against genocide provides a framework of hope and recognition for victims. As noted by Auschwitz survivor Judge Thomas Buergenthal, the existence of such legal instruments in the 1940s would have signaled that “crimes were being committed” and that victims were not alone. This symbolic and normative power is essential for fostering a global culture of accountability.

Future Outlook for Global Justice and Sustainable Peace

The system of international criminal justice is, from a historical perspective, “still in its infancy” and requires continued development and reinforcement. Jurists like Gurgen Petrossian maintain that although international law has “always been in crisis,” the political difficulties do not negate its legal existence or the validity of the Nuremberg Idea. The pursuit of accountability, however fraught with challenges, remains an indispensable component of the global effort to build peaceful, just, and inclusive societies as envisioned by Sustainable Development Goal 16. The fate of perpetrators of international crimes, according to this principle, is sealed; it is only a matter of time before they face a tribunal.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article’s central theme is the development, challenges, and importance of international justice, which is the core of SDG 16. It discusses the legacy of the Nuremberg trials in establishing accountability for international crimes.
• The text explicitly mentions concepts integral to SDG 16, such as “international justice,” “international law,” “crimes against peace,” “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and the establishment of institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC).
• The article highlights ongoing conflicts and the failure to prevent violence, stating, “In an era of wars and massacres with impunity, from Ukraine to the Middle East, passing through Sudan and other parts of the planet, the edifice of international justice that was born in Nuremberg is showing severe cracks.” This directly relates to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

• The article directly references the failure to meet this target by citing numerous examples of violence and massacres. It mentions “horror in Ukraine, in Sudan, in Israel on October 7, and in Gaza,” as well as historical “massacres in the Balkans and Rwanda” and the “murder of six million Jews.” The discussion revolves around the legal response to this violence, underscoring the relevance of the target.

Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

• This target is the primary focus of the article. The “Nuremberg Idea” is described as the principle that “When a person commits an international crime… that person must be held accountable.” This is the essence of promoting the rule of law at the international level.
• The article traces the evolution of institutions designed to uphold this target, from the ad-hoc Nuremberg tribunal to the permanent International Criminal Court.
• It also addresses the challenge of ensuring “equal access to justice” by pointing out the “imbalance” in the system, where powerful leaders like Putin and Netanyahu seem unlikely to face trial, questioning if justice is applied equally to all.

Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent violence and combat… crime

• The article illustrates this target by describing the creation of international tribunals as a form of international cooperation to combat the most severe crimes. The establishment of the Nuremberg tribunal by the “United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France” is a prime example of such cooperation.
• It also mentions the role of national institutions, such as the “national trials [that] took place in Germany” and the legal proceedings against Pinochet in London, showing the interplay between national and international justice systems.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Implied Indicator: Establishment of international legal frameworks and judicial bodies

• The article measures the progress of international justice by citing the creation of key legal instruments and institutions. It explicitly mentions the adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” It also chronicles the establishment of judicial bodies like the “International Criminal Tribunals in The Hague and Arusha” and the “International Criminal Court,” which serve as concrete indicators of progress in building a system for international rule of law (Target 16.3).

Implied Indicator: Number of individuals held accountable for international crimes

• The article uses specific cases of prosecution as milestones. It details the trial of “21 men associated with the most horrific crimes of the 20th century” at Nuremberg, the trials of “Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem” and “Klaus Barbie in Lyon,” the arrest of “Augusto Pinochet in London,” and the indictment of “Rodrigo Duterte.” These instances serve as qualitative indicators of the justice system’s effectiveness in holding perpetrators accountable (Target 16.3).

Implied Indicator: Prevalence of unprosecuted mass violence and impunity

• The article implicitly uses the continuation of mass violence as an indicator of the justice system’s shortcomings. By stating that the Nuremberg legacy “has not been able to prevent horrors in our time” and listing ongoing conflicts in “Ukraine, the Middle East, passing through Sudan,” it points to the failure to significantly reduce violence (Target 16.1). The unlikelihood of leaders like Putin and Netanyahu facing trial is presented as an indicator of persistent impunity, which undermines the rule of law (Target 16.3).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: english.elpais.com