Nuremberg Trial - Movie Review Example

Introduction The Nuremberg Trial is trial of four Nazi judges before American court which comprised of three judges. The Nazi judges were accused of being partner in crimes and murders by the Nazi forces, and were further accused of their failure to make fair and honourable judgments. The four Nazi judges were accused of corrupt practices, and were tried for their failure to abide by and apply the fundamentals of law.The movie is based upon major shortcoming as per which the German judges could not be trailed on American land by the American judges under the Constitution of America.

The accusations against judges were based upon atrocities and murders of Germans inside Germany. The establishment of an American tribunal for the trail of four German judges was therefore constitutionally and legally unjustifiable. Legal Structure - 2009 In the existing legal frame work structure, the accusations related to international war crimes are directly treated by International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice has the international and approved authority, as per the charter of United Nations, duly signed by all the members of General Assembly.

As per the charter, the International Court can summon the defendant irrespective of geographical affiliation, but this is possible only when complains are registered. This specific case is relevant to human rights violation, and therefore any country or party can register the case against these judges. The Nazi judges have to defend their judgment and actions in accordance with charter and legislation of the Human Rights Commission (U.S. District Court, 2005). It is important to state that legally no court in specific country can hear the applications in the favour or against the citizens of other country - unless the citizens are travelling abroad and even in that specific case the citizens are provided legal support by Embassy officers of their home-country.

The case against Nazi was strong based upon human rights violation inside, and the accusations of human genocide were innumerable. From ethical and moral perspective, the filing of case was justifiable but from on legal perspective it was impractical (U.S. District Court, 2005). As discussed earlier, the correct approach should have been that American or any other country should have approached International Court of Justice, and should have filed against these Nazi judges. The classification of human rights is complicated, it has many interpretations; for instance child labour is violation against human right but in Asian countries there are no stringent law against child labour because of socio-economic conditions.

It is therefore legally incorrect to conduct trail against an international party on local laws. Considering, the fact that the judgment made by Nazi judges were as per the constitutional and legal framework of Germany, then probably it is difficult to accuse these judges. As we are discussing the legal aspect, it is important to highlight that the case against Nazi judges at Nuremberg was based upon moral and ethical misconduct. With reference to the judgment of Nuremberg Trial, the judgment was implemented by the American forces as per their legal obligation.

The American judges announced verdict against the Nazi judges, and were sentenced hang till death. From the perspective of International Court of Justice, the verdict of the court is obligatory on the member countries of General Assembly, but it is never compulsory. The country has the right to discard the judgment, and the decisions are not legal binding. The reason behind this non-compliance is that there is no international law, but yes there is an international legal framework. With reference to Nuremberg trail, the defendants had the right to approach higher courts for review of decision, and therefore right of petition existed.

In this specific case of 2009, the right of review petition filed at International Court of Justice are then re-examined and studied by the same Court and judges - there is no concept of high courts (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2006). In Nuremberg trail, the Nazi judges were accused based upon certain proof submitted by the prosecutor. The proof included certain video which showed genocide inside Germany, and the event of Holocaust. The defendants expressed their ignorance towards the magnitude of genocide.

In this specific case, when the defendant is able to proof that he is not related to the certain aspect of the case then the case against him stands void. It is important to mention that just through presentation of videos and audios, the court will never get convinced as per the contemporary legal guidelines. It is important that the prosecutor should establish a direct relationship between the defendant and evidence; the genocide in Germany is condemnable but the documentary evidence failed to directly relate the judgment of judges with the occurrence of genocide.

Therefore as per 2009 legal structure, the evidence were neither too convincing nor strong enough to put the judges behind the bar. However, it is important to reveal that as per 2009 law structure, any person party to criminal group is accountable and guilty. The judges were working under Nazi regime, and were therefore part of their agenda. It is then based upon the court to establish relationship between the judges and the government. It is also important to state that no case was ever registered against Hitler in any court outside Germany, therefore the Nazi judges had strong plea that the case against them is politically motivated.

ConclusionIt is important to share that the international legal forums have supported corporate liability - and the International Military Tribunal stands legally and constitutionally competent and qualified to conduct hearings and give verdict, and therefore the decision by the apex court is valid (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2006). The Nuremberg trail was about conviction of group which was part of the international genocide campaign, and when we talk about murdering of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, it is often the moral and ethical aspect which play crucial and significant role against the law.

The Nuremberg trail had legal deficiencies but however it was the moral and ethical responsibility of the law towards the affected families that decision had to be taken of merit. It is often stated of legal forums that if we keep on referring to legal requirements and compliance then probably very sentence by the apex court is challengeable and convertible, therefore ethical and moral principles play influence role in decision making. References1. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Rabi Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc - 05-4863-cv (L), 05-6768-cv (CON). August, 2006.2. United States District Court Southern District of New York. Presbyterian Church v. Talisman Energy Inc. 01 Civ. 9882 (DLC). June, 2005.