2011/04/29 by Guido Acquaviva · 1 citation
Environmental Science · Social Sciences · #Crimes against humanity #Criminology #Economic Justice #Humanity #International Law and Human Rights #International law #Law #Political science #Sociology #Tribunal #War crime #Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/jicj/mqr010
openalex publication_date 2011/04/29 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Over the past decades, scholars have noticed a few significant discrepancies between the English and the French versions of the Nuremberg Judgment, in particular with regard to the notion of crimes against humanity and its concrete application. By comparing these two versions with the Russian one, this article attempts to provide additional insights into the significance attached to the principle of legality by the various participants in the Nuremberg trial. The conclusion is that, while the different versions of the Nuremberg Judgment are hardly reconcilable through the usual methods of interpretation, an analysis of the cultural and legal background of the judges assists in effectively explaining the discrepancies. Such an analysis also suggests further original avenues of enquiry into international criminal judgments in general.