The Nuremberg Trial(s) as a 'lieu de légitimation' : Law, Politics, History

This essay examines the historical change in the reception of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg from the 1940s to the 1990s. Stiller analyzes the arguments presented by supporters and critics of the Nuremberg Trial in the 1940s, highlighting those that influenced experts in international criminal law in subsequent decades. Additionally, she explores how these arguments were adapted to the discourses in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s. Over the time, two substantial shifts occurred. On the one hand, the moral necessity argument that led to the establishment of the International Military Tribunal after World War II gained support from an ever-broader range of legal professionals and human rights advocates. Conversely, since the 1960s, there have been endeavors to expand the rudimentary international criminal law established by the Nuremberg Trial to encompass colonial and decolonization crimes. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s accelerated the establishment of the international criminal law regime, which was based on discourses of retributive justice and a didactic-moral attitude toward the law. The essay argues that the Nuremberg Trial, in the discourse spanning five decades, was not merely a lieu de mémoire, but also constitutes a lieu de légitimation for political usage.