Nuremberg Trials

The discussion about the Nuremberg Trials today interested me, because it reminded me of my uneasiness about international law. I see an intense necessity for it: how else can we prevent wars and bring criminals to justice? And World War II demanded a new definition of crime for the sheer scale of human brutality. The killing of civilians has rightly become a crime against humanity, and the Holocaust is particularly shocking partly because it had little to do with actual combat. Murdering Jews by the millions can only be vaguely described as terror tactics, but they weren't meant to terrorize the Allies. Though we're uncomfortable with the "victors" deciding what is right and what is wrong, the horrible crimes involved were not just German crimes, but human ones, and thus the determination and trial of these crimes should involve the whole world. In that sense, I think the Nuremberg Trials were justified; they also brought to the front (through a sort of show, as we discussed) what the new definition of morality in war was going to be. We accept that this sense of right and wrong in combat is generally just and good. And yet. It seems hypocritical for the droppers of the atom bomb to define what a war crime is, and there is still the issue of imposed morality. Who gave them the right, or jurisdiction, to try these men? I am reminded of the ICC's arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the leader of Sudan. It seems odd to me that this court in The Hague should have the authority to try a sitting head of state for war crimes, at risk of perhaps upsetting an uncertain peace process. But if the court does not bring him to task for his crimes, who will? Does the good of humanity necessitate such international courts? But who decides what is for the good of humanity?