Open AccessRealism Versus Idealism at Nuremburg
Author(s) -
Emma Campbell-Mohn
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
cornell international affairs review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2156-0536
pISSN - 2156-0528
DOI - 10.37513/ciar.v7i2.451
Subject(s) - idealism , law , political science , realism , restitution , nuremberg trials , economic justice , international law , sociology , war crime , philosophy , epistemology
The creation of the Nuremberg Court following World War II exemplified international cooperation, particularly between the Great Powers: the United States, France, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain. Expounding the benefits of justice and the rule of law, the Nuremberg Trials are often viewed as the pinnacle of Wilsonian idealism. However, further examination reveals the actions of the Roosevelt administration were not derived from a united Cabinet seeking to realize broad principles of humanitarian justice and equality. Instead of being a unified decision based on these values, the reasoning behind the creation of the Nuremberg Court was hotly disputed. The Court was formed for multiple reasons: to ensure that Germany could not claim restitution for wartime losses; to prevent formation of a new court directed by the United Nations; and to punish Germany for its crimes. Therefore, the reasoning behind the creation of the Nuremberg Court contained realist logic.