International War Crimes Tribunals Why

International War Crimes Tribunals

Why War Crimes Tribunals Don't Work

At the conclusion of wars across history, war crimes tribunals have become a popular way to seek justice in a democratic form. Replacing undisputed execution of war criminals, many believe these tribunals allow victims and criminals to meet each other under the protection of the law, punishing those responsible for the war crimes and pushing the nation ahead into harmony. Others suggest that war crimes tribunals are inherently unfair in that they only judge the loosing nation, they often let criminals get away with their crimes, and they punish those who were taking orders instead of those who were giving them. Some infamous examples of war crimes tribunals are the Tokyo and Nuremburg trials, which have been widely accepted as two of the most successful (McMorran). In order to determine whether or not international war crimes tribunals work, however one must have an understanding of their purpose. In fact, international war crimes tribunals have many purposes, including punishing those responsible for heinous crimes, deterring future crime, and allowing the nations torn apart by war to come together again in peace. Through a closer examination of each of these purposes, one can determine that while international war crimes tribunals make some accomplishments, they are generally unsuccessful.

The trials at Nuremburg are a good example of how international war crimes tribunals can be successful in punishing criminals for their victims. These trials resulted in several hangings. However, just because international war crimes tribunals end in hangings does not mean they are successful. Instead, many tribunals are unable to try those who actually gave orders for the activities outside of general war behavior because they are dead or protected. In reality, what ends up happening is that men and women who were simply being good soldiers and following orders are hung. While this gives the families of the victims some solace, it does not actually add up to punishing those responsible. Also, some may argue that punishing those who simply took orders is immoral in that they had no choice.

Furthermore, these tribunals and their hanging of common soldiers does not do much to deter war crimes. According to McMorran, many believe it is unlikely that men and women like Hitler and Stalin would have been deterred by the prospect of a war crimes tribunal. These men did what they did because they actually believed it was right. As one can see, it takes a certain state of mind to be able to wage this kind of war. These men acted as if they were on a crusade. It is unlikely that they would have stopped because they knew a war crimes tribunal was in their future. This model also applies to many of the other acts of aggression that have occurred since World War Two. The Rwandan genocide was fueled by those who believed the extermination of a people group was correct, and the September 11 terrorists also had a higher motivation.