The Nuremberg Laws and National Sovereignty

How important are human rights? Are they more important than national sovereignty? National sovereignty is the idea that nations have a right to exist. Other nations do not have the right to interfere with them. In short, what happens inside their own borders is their own business. That belief was challenged after the Second World War. A movement supporting human rights arose and challenged national sovereignty. Two events in one German city show how the debate shifted.

That city was Nuremberg. In 1935, the Nazi Party staged a huge rally there. Nazi leaders also enacted the Nuremberg Laws. They mixed Nazi ideology, racism, and social Darwinism.¹ They singled out Germany’s Jewish population. The laws defined German Jews by their ancestry, not their religion. They were stripped of citizenship. Their rights to work or marry were restricted.

By this time Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. He said that the Jews were the enemy of the German people. The Nuremberg Laws gave the Nazis the excuse to get rid of anyone they felt was “undesirable.” They set the stage for the Holocaust. Within ten years, more than 6 million Jews were murdered. The Nazis also killed millions of disabled and gay people, along with others. Anyone who did not fit Nazi ideas about race and society was a target. The Nuremberg Laws enforced Hitler’s belief: He could do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted inside Germany’s borders.

The United Nations and the paradox of human rights

The Second World War ended in 1945. It was the most destructive conflict in history. Nazi crimes convinced the victorious Allies to take international action. They wanted to prevent such a war from happening again. Human rights advocates made their case. They said that protecting human rights was the best way to ensure peace and security. That same year, leaders met at the San Francisco Conference. They were there to create the United Nations (UN). The UN Charter, or agreement, was signed by 50 countries in June 1945.

The charter, though, contains a paradox (contradiction). Article 1 states a “faith in fundamental human rights.” Article 2, guarantees national sovereignty. It forbids the United Nations from interfering “within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” The UN was saying it could prevent and punish human rights abuses. However, it also said nations were still sovereign. In other words, their leaders could still do what they wished inside their borders.

The contradiction was highlighted in November 1945. The Nuremberg trials began. They were overseen by the United States, Great Britain, and their allies in the war. The surviving Nazi leaders were put on trial. It was a historical first. Never before had the international community put leaders of a major power on trial.

The Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg trials lasted until 1949. They were something new. For the first time, leaders could be punished for crimes against their own people. The German officials defended their actions. They said they were protected by their national sovereignty. Hermann Goering was a top Nazi official. He said, “That was our right! We were a sovereign state and that was strictly our business.” However, the rulings of the Nuremberg trials disagreed.

In the end, the trials found 161 people guilty. Thirty- seven were sentenced to death, including Goering. However, he committed suicide before his execution.

International Law and human rights

The Nuremberg trials were an important development in international law. The trials resulted in a set of rules that are more important than the laws of a single nation state.

The trials produced the Nuremberg Principles. They include seven rules. They explain what a war crime is. They also make it clear that “following orders” is no excuse for committing a war crime. These principles helped create new definitions of human rights.

The Nuremberg trials inspired the human rights movements that followed. There were calls for global standards about such rights. It presented a problem, though. What power did the international community have over abuses inside a country? At its heart, the debate is about the difference between human rights and civil rights. Civil rights are rights people are entitled to because they are citizens of a country. The rights of French citizens differ from the rights of Chinese citizens, for example. Human rights are different. They are rights we have simply because we are human beings.

Historian Lynn Hunt argues that human rights require three qualities: “Rights must be natural (inherent in human beings); equal (the same for everyone); and universal (applicable everywhere).” Human rights should not depend on where you come from.

A victor’s peace and power over principles

New understandings of human rights developed. People have used them to protect themselves from abuse by their governments. The European Court of Human Rights has delivered more than 10,000 judgements since 1959. Nuremberg also inspired the International Criminal Court. The ICC was created in 1998.

Some American politicians did not approve of new calls to support human rights. The demands for protections went too far, they said. They worried international agreements might limit American independence. They did not want the United States to have to answer to the UN.

Eleanor Roosevelt had been President Franklin Roosevelt’s wife. She was a gifted leader herself. Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the committee that wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She wanted a binding treaty to protect people around the world. President Harry Truman, though, instructed her against that. He asked her instead to draft a non-binding resolution (declaration or oath). She did as he asked. Afterward, though, British diplomats ran a secret campaign. They did not want the UDHR widely translated. It was clear they didn’t want their colonial subjects to read it. The United States and Great Britain had just won a war against the Nazis. They had held trials that judged Nazi crimes. Yet, both countries feared being held accountable by the United Nations.

Still, the Nuremberg trials changed the world. Their rulings were legal tools for human rights supporters. They helped people fight for rights, even in the United States. For instance, African American groups appealed to the UN in the 1940s and 1950s. They were struggling against inequality and segregation in the United States. They appealed to the UN for help.

The principle of national sovereignty endured. The Nuremberg trials, though, brought more attention to human rights. Advocates have used international law to confront their leaders. They continue to challenge the idea that governments can do whatever they want inside their own borders.

1 Theories of Social Darwinism emerged in the nineteenth century. These theories attempted to take biological theories and apply them to society. Especially, the notion of “survival of the fittest”. Social Darwinism has been discredited as bad science. It was also filled with racist undertones.