BrisMUN ‘18

INTRODUCTION
The Nuremberg Trials were the first international military tribunals convened to try and
convict war criminals from a foreign jurisdiction. Additionally, they were first instance of
individuals being held responsible for their actions during the war at the international level.
Consequently, the trials serve as the foundations for modern international criminal law and
their contributions to subsequent criminal tribunals cannot be understated.

In carrying out the simulations of the trials of two hypothetical defendants, advocates and
judges should keep in mind the severity and importance of the crimes being tried. The
defence have a duty to represent their clients, but will keep in mind that the acts have been
settled and the only question before the Court is whether the defendant is guilty of these
crimes.

A good advocate is one that can answer questions concisely and speak confidently about the
case before them. A good judge is one that can speak with knowledge of the law and case
before them, question those arguments presented by advocates with original insight and
understands the consequences of their judgements.

The Secretariat encourages all those to engage with this topic as it serves as the foundation
of modern international criminal law, is of great interest to us personally and collectively,
and would be of great use to anyone seeking to explore a career in international law in any
capacity.

2
 The Nuremberg Trials

CONTENTS
Introduction 2

Relevant Concepts 4
Defence v Prosecution  4
Jurisdiction  4
International Law 4
Laws of War 5
International Humanitarian Law 6
War Crimes 6
Total War 7

History and Context 8

Scope of Authority  8
The Situation 9

Agreed Facts 11
Defendant 1 11
Defendant 2 12
Common Facts 14

Submissions & Manner 15

Judgements 16

Timetable 17
Day 1 17
Day 2 17
Day 3 17

Special Interactions 18

QASBATA 19

3
BrisMUN ‘18

RELEVANT CONCEPTS
Defence v Prosecution

Prosecution will be required by the Court to prove to the jury and in absence of a jury to a
judge that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defence has an easier task
as they are not required to prove the defendant was innocent, but rather that prosecution
cannot meet the required onus of proof.

Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of a Court is the power vested in it to hear and rule of specific matters.
In international law, parties must submit or accept the authority of a court before it has
jurisdiction to rule on their matter.1 This differs from the domestic structure were all citizens
and subjects are automatically privy to the jurisdiction of the relevant court as a matter of the
domestic justice system.

In modern times, the International Criminal Court derives its jurisdiction from the Rome
Statute, where an individual may be brought before the Court if they are a citizen of a state
party or committed a war crime in the territory of a state party. The IMT did not have the
luxury of such formalised jurisdiction but rather relied on that conferred by the Nuremberg
Charter.

International Law

International Law is the law that governs the relationships between states, and differs from
domestic law in that it is built primarily on voluntary agreements between nations rather
than binding statutes handed down by national legislatures.2 When two nations agree to be
bound by a law, they sign a treaty to that effect. However, the signing of the treaty does not
constitute enforcement of the law, the law must first be adopted into the domestic framework
through ratification or accession.3

Conversely there are some laws recognised by the international community as that of binding
custom. Customs is comprised of two elements, State Practice and opinio juris.4 State Practice
is the constant and stable conduct of states combined with opinio juris, which is the belief that
states are legally obliged to undertake this conduct.5

A customary law is difficult to establish, but the International Court of Justice has accepted
many instances of custom as binding on states and their citizens.6 Custom can be especially

1 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 34; Rome Statute.

2 James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, (Cambridge University
Press, 2015, 7th Edition).
3 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 1971, entered into force
1980, Articles 11-15.
4 North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Germany v Denmark) [1964] ICJ Rep, [76].
5 Corfu Channel Case; Lotus Case.
6 Brownlie’s.

4
 The Nuremberg Trials

difficult to apply to individuals as it stands opposed to the principle of retrospection.7 For

example, how can a person be found to have committed a crime if the action they undertook
was not considered a crime in their home state, and they did not know it was a crime at the
international level. Indeed, the action did not serve as a crime until the Court decides it is one
in the moment of deliberation.8 For the purposes of debate you should rely on the Customs of
International Humanitarian Law.9

Some of the most fundamental or prescient international law is that of erga omnes and
jus cogens. Laws that fit these standards are generally considered to be rules that apply to
everyone and are non-negotiable. That the law is so fundamentally important that there can
be not derogation from it and all are bound by it, with no option to object to it.10

Laws of War

History of the Rules of War

The laws of war as we understand them originated from ancient Rome. The Roman Empire
had adopted the concept of Jus Legalese from ancient Greece which was to say that war
should only be carried out as a means of defence or in the pursuit of a legitimate goal.
However, once this war had begun, Rome would engage in a now debunked practice of Total
War.11

The next evolution of legal war took place during the Christian integration with the Roman
Empire. Early Christians were a pacifist people attempted to reconcile their beliefs with
Rome’s war like nature by adopting the theory of Just War (jus ad bello). A just war is one that
is both legally started and legally carried out. These two elements are understood as separate
points of law, jus in bellum and jus ad bello.

The League of Nations was the first institution specifically intended to enforce the rules
of war. By this time, the modern system of two limbs of the law was in use. However, the
League’s focus on prohibiting formal war impeded its ability to manage conflict that had
broken out. In the wake of the failure of the League of Nations to manage the outbreak of the
second world war, it became apparent that a new approach to the issue was required. And in
response the international community set to formalising the concept of a war crime.

Laws of War Today

The principles further developed into modern international humanitarian law. They two main
principles borne from it that are still used today are the maxims of jus ad bellum and jus in
bello. The former governs the questions of whether the reason to go war was sufficient to
justify the war.12 And the latter is the question of whether the conduct of the war was legal.

7 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) (Judgement) [1988] ICJ REP 116.
8 Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (Judgement) [1927] PCIJ Series A – No 10
9 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1
10 http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-
9780199796953-0124.xml.
11 Tarcisio Gazzini and Nicholas Tsagourisa, The Use of Force in International Law, (Ashgate
Publishing, 2012).
12 http://opil.ouplaw.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/
law-9780199231690-e334?rskey=IkSbwj&result=5&prd=EPIL; UN Charter, Art 2(4).

5
BrisMUN ‘18

Serving as the foundation of modern IHL, these principles cannot be understated. Due to this
distinction, a war can be started illegally but carried out legally and vice versa.

International Humanitarian Law

IHL is the field of law that governs the conduct of nations and armies during the course of
war. It is a purely jus in bello enquiry and does not consider whether the law was legally
started in the first place.13 The laws are triggered by the advent of armed attacks and remain
in force until the cessation of hostilities.

Today, most of these principles are recorded in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional
Protocols.14 But most of the original laws existed only as recognised custom that was largely
codified after the second world war. Since the end of the 19th Century, the International
Committee of the Red Cross has endeavoured to codify this law and still does so to this day.

Recognising the difference between the conduct of a state and the conduct of an individual is
important when discussing the notion of war crimes. Only individuals can be guilty of a war
crime. To be guilty, one must be identifiably responsible for either ordering or carrying out an
action that is defined as a war crime, or for not taking the necessary precautions required by
IHL. That is the principles of Distinction, Necessity, and Proportionality.

War Crimes

The accepted jurisprudence in modern law is that a war criminal is a person that undertakes
action or through wilful omission brings about some form of event that is in breach of the
laws or customs of war as set out in IHL. And the event in question entails indefinable,
personal responsibility otherwise known as direct involvement.15 Historically, every breach
of a law of war was considered to be both a war crime on the individual level and an
internationally wrongful act on the state level.16

Direct Involvement is today defined by the ICRC as contingent upon three elements:

1. Threshold of Harm
2. Causal Link
3. Nexus of Belligerency

If all of these are met then an individual will both lose their civilian protections promised
by the Geneva Conventions (making them subject to lawful attack) and they will be legally
capable of committing war crimes.

The Concept of a War Crime in its modern understanding dates back to the Holy Roman
Empire were, during the trial of Peter Con Hagenbach, it was determined that as a knight he
had duty to uphold certain standards of dignity and compassion rather than simply carry out
his orders without question.

13 Geneva Conventions (1947), common article 2

14 1st Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1970)
15 JS Pictet (ed) The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary: Geneva Conven-
tion relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War vol 4 (ICRC Geneva 1958).
16 US Department of Defence, Field Manual, supra note 264, at 178.

6
 The Nuremberg Trials

Since then, the concept has evolved over the years in the realm of Customary International
Humanitarian Law until it was codified by national governments and the international
community at large in The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.17

The first national attempt to codify the rules of war and establish criminal responsibility for
their breach was done by President Lincoln in the Leiber Code which was enforced against the
Union Army during the American Civil War.18

These conventions constituted the earliest attempts to universally codify the customs of war
or IHL. Serving to build upon the First and Second Geneva Conventions whilst there are now
decisive lists of actions that constitute War Crimes, the international community did not have
such extensive reasoning and law to rely upon during the Nuremberg Trials, therefore, the
judges had a wider scope of discretion when drawing their conclusions.

The Nuremberg Court drew distinctions between War Crimes, Crimes against Peace, and
Crimes against humanity. All of these will explored in the simulation.

Total War

This concept has been previously employed as a means of justifying any action taken during
a war that was legally implemented. Nations could claim that if the purpose of the war was
just, any action taken in order to achieve that end was equally just. Otherwise stated, the ends
justify the means.

17 Hague Convention 1907.

18 Liber Code

7
BrisMUN ‘18

HISTORY AND CONTEXT

During the Second World War, the Belligerents of Nazi Germany undertook many policy
decisions that would constitute breaches of International Humanitarian Law particular to the
standards of invading forces in occupied territory, particularly in their treatment of civilians
and prisoners of war.

In response, the Allied powers established in the International Military Tribunal of IMT under
the Nuremberg Charter to try those who could be found individually responsible for the
terrible actions committed during the war. Whilst we will refer to it with different names, it
was technically speaking a Tribunal. But can be referred to as Court or in other ways.

The Court met between November of 1945 and October of 1946, trying twenty one different
defendants for crimes ranging from being a vital tool of the Nazi War and Government
Machine to ordering and carrying out individual war crimes.

At the time there was some dispute as to the Court’s authority to rule on matters that were
not defined and to try foreign citizens before them were they would normally have no
jurisdiction.

Due to a relative lack of guiding law on the matters, the Court determined to classify acts into
one of four categories:

1. War Crimes
2. Crimes Against Humanity
3. Crimes Against the Peace
4. Conspiracy to Commit Crimes

It was additionally necessary for the Court to consider their political position as they
were required to satiate the Allied Powers and to ensure the principle of a fair trial to the
defendants. This balancing act lead to some questionable verdicts that have remained
contentious to this day.

Scope of Authority

You will be sitting in the first session of the Court. Rules of Procedure have been established
as requiring all eight of the judges to sit in and offer a decision and contribute to the
judgement.

Guilt or innocence will be determined by a majority vote of the judges, with the President’s
vote being decisive. Notwithstanding the deviations provided for here, Judges and Advocates
will be bound by the limitations set by the Nuremberg Charter when conducting their
enquiries and making their submissions.

There will be no precedents strictly binding the Court but they may rely on International Law
and domestic jurisprudence to guide their decisions.

The Court will be asked to read written submissions from Prosecutors and Defendants then

8
 The Nuremberg Trials

proceed to oral submissions were questions of law may be presented and answered by the
advocates, however these shall be limited.

The Court will be asked in a separate session to consider the sentences they will hand down
on the defendant(s) that are found guilty. These punishments should fit the crime and be
based on sound legal reasoning that would fit the wide authority delegated to the Court.

The Situation

The Second World War presented one of the most challenging humanitarian crises in human
history. The actions undertaken by the German military during the war brought about the
destruction of arable land, homes and infrastructure. Consequently, the lives of millions of
people had been irreparably damaged.

The Nazi Party constructed their platform on demonising segments of the population
and alleviating average Germans of the guilt and blame the international community
had projected onto them during the interwar period. Compounded by their effective
economics management in the wake of the Great Depression, the party was able to tighten
a stranglehold over the Reichstag and effectively dismantle German democracy into a
Dictatorship and Cult of Personality, enforced by a variety of instructions that would be later
classified as Criminal Organisations by the IMT.19

During the War, German troops took part in some of the worst war atrocities to date, the
systematic capture, dispossession and extermination of millions of people remains to be
one of the most egregious examples of criminal activity in modern history. The true extent
of these actions did not become clear until after the war had come to an end and the
international community, rallied against the Axis in order to ensure that such evils would
never again be repeated. Consequently, this one conflict permanently changed the Earth’s
political and cultural landscape.

In order to satiate the blood lust of the allied victors and preserve some route to sustainable
peace in Europe, the Nuremberg Trials were held in order to hold those responsible for the
worst atrocities, individually liable for their crimes.

The world is currently unified in their hatred of Germany and the partitioning of the country
is currently underway. Compounded by the ongoing crisis that has arisen from the Holocaust,
millions of people have been left homeless, malnourished, and completely dispossessed.20
International aid agencies are struggling to manage the ongoing refugee crisis and American
interests are competing to sway official policy between rebuilding a free Germany into a
potential trade partner, and condemning the Country to poverty and despotism so that it may
never again wrought the damage it inflicted upon the world.21

To this end, the Court will be required to preserve a strong domestic Germany that is capable
of recovering after the war so as to not repeat the mistakes of the Treaty of Versailles.
And ensuring that the world does not feel cheated by the interpretation that German War
Criminals are not properly punished for their crimes whilst setting strong enough precedent
to ensure that no crimes of this scale are ever repeated again.

19 https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Nazi_Vol-I.pdf
20 https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007069
21 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

9
BrisMUN ‘18

The trials, to be held at Nuremberg at representative of the fact that Nazi rallies took place
here and it was to a degree the Headquarters and birth place of the Nazi party. To that end,
the party’s birth place will also serve as its graveyard.

10
 The Nuremberg Trials

AGREED FACTS
The following information has been collected by the IMT Prosecutors and submitted to the
Tribunal, which has accepted them. The Defendants were then shown the information which
they have accepted as factually accurate. To this end, the validity of the information cannot be
questioned by counsel.

Defendant 1

1. The first defendant before the Court became involved with the Nazi Party in 1934. He
became a supporter of Hitler’s ideologies during his final year of university in Frankfurt.
He founded an anti-Semitic club at the university and was accused of organising members
of the group to target Jewish students who were walking alone at night in order to assault
them, which he denied.

2. In 1936 he began employment as a minor staffer in the Nazi Party, primarily working on
economic regulations for the procurement of Jewish businesses and assets. The particular
policy he was in charge of related to the specific racial identifiers used by the Nazi party
to determine if a person was undesirable. As a consequence of his work, he took up an
interest in racial science and medicine. This interest in the scientific aspect of Nazi policy
was attributable to his later career success.

3. In 1937 he became a high ranking economic advisor to Hitler and the Nazi Party, by this
point he had specialised himself in the economics of health and wellbeing, choosing
to promote policies that would improve the health of German citizens and bolster
productivity and economic growth. His proposals would be later co-opted by an associated
and turned into the Lebensborn program.

4. August 1939: Defendant 1 became severely ill with tuberculosis and handed his portfolio
to a senior assistant, who carried out several economic policies designed by a group
of advisors including the Defendant, intended to seize funds from Jewish German
bank accounts and consolidate them with seized Jewish assets for the purposes of
transportation to Switzerland and Albania. The program was predominantly based
throughout Germany, but would later be expanded to all lands that would fall under
German control. A memo seized from the defendant’s study is found to have read “… you
can crush a nation’s cities, their infrastructure, their food supply, and their institutions...
But you have never truly beaten them until you deprive them of their art, their history, and
their culture. For a nation is only truly dead when their museums, galleries, and homes
are empty and bare. Take all you can from them and they will beg you to end them….”
Current evidence suggests the Defendant penned but never sent the Memo. Having taken
ill before it could be finished.

5. September 1939: Start of World War II with the invasion of Poland by Germany.

6. January 1941: Defendant 1 has recovered well enough to continue his work within the
Nazi Party and returns to find that he is no longer needed in the position. He volunteered
himself to manage a large concentration camp within occupied Poland, which he manages
until the end of the war.

11
BrisMUN ‘18

7. It was later revealed, after the war that the Defendant had been nursed during his illness
by a neighbour who was later identified as being of Jewish decent. The Defendant being
dependent on the neighbour to nurse him back to health, did not report her to the
authorities, and is currently supported by this individual in the gallery (witness 1).
8. After taking control of the camp, processing rates began to rise dramatically. As one of
the largest in the Reich it managed a large population of inmates. It was also reported
that the Defendant had taken on the responsibility of ensuring all processing was done as
efficiently as possible.

9. Shortly before the Allied invasion of Poland, a former British Prisoner of War, and Russian
Prisoner of War were met by the Russian line in the east. They each carry a letter one
written in English and Russian. Collectively, the letters explain that the Defendant had
been using his position as Camp Director to collect and help free as many prisoners as
possible. He had orchestrated an elaborate system were many of the detainees were
allowed to escape the camp and flee to relative safety in the wilderness. He would then
change the camp’s logs to show drastically inflated processing numbers. However, in order
to keep up appearances, many of the camp’s oldest and weakest inhabitants, had been
put to death by his hand.

10. After the camp was released, a network of tunnels were discovered leading from a
small shed to the other side of the fence, many of the freed inmates confirmed that the
Defendant and a small group of trusted accomplices were the only ones permitted to lead
people to and activate the gas chambers. It was recounted that people would be tapped
on the shoulder and lead away from the group as they passed the shed and then told
directions to escape by either the Defendant or one of his accomplices.

11. The Defendant was charged with War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

Defendant 2

1. 1928-1937: Defendant 2 works as a civil servant for the German Government as a town
planner and civil engineer.

2. At the end of 1937, he took a job as an engineer for an expansion of the Autobahn system.
In order to improve his chances of receiving the job, he joined the Nazi Party, which he had
not expressed a great deal of passion or interest in until this point in time. Several weeks
later, the defendant’s wife revealed to him that she was of Jewish descent, having known
for a while but now only bringing it to his attention due to the growing anti-Semitic tension
in Germany. The Defendant made several efforts to bury his wife’s identity, going as far as
to acquire and destroy government records by virtue of his new position.

3. In August of 1938, the Defendant’s wife was arrested. The defendant sued for divorce
later that month, claiming that he did not know of wife’s origins and that the deception
was grounds for annulment, which the Court accepted. Throughout the rest of 1938 the
Defendant sought medical treatment for depression.

4. In 1939, the Defendant took up a new position planning for the logistical incursions of the
German Army into ‘historically German territories’. It was the defendant’s job to ensure
that the army was logistically capable of completing their campaign and that once territory
had been conquered, that suitable supply chains could be maintained in the background.

12
 The Nuremberg Trials

The Defendant’s office produced a report containing the paragraph, “…concern for the
availability of oil suggests the Army should immediately set about securing supplies from
Scandinavia…” It is unclear which individual authored this report, but it is the earliest
indication of Nazi intentions to invade north, when they had no traditional claim on the
territory.

5. In 1941 the Defendant was charged with a drunk driving offence in Berlin, one of many
alcohol related incidents that had plagued him since his divorce. Facing forced resignation
from his position he enlisted in the Army and was placed as second in command in a
battalion on the front lines in a small town in The Ukraine. The town was under German
occupation and the townspeople were in the process of being removed as the fertile land
around the village had been designated as appropriate lebensraum. The Defendants
admits to being assigned to a house with a small family, and having become endeared
with their daughter, made arrangements with friends in Berlin to secure them adequate
conditions once they were relocated.

6. The lands around the village had been subject to extreme and bloody warfare, with local
soviet militias taking part in guerrilla attacks on German patrols and supply chains. As the
Nazis had continued to push east, the tactics had become increasingly desperate to break
local spirit. Including the immediate arrests of any suspected of aiding the militias, the
executions of municipal officials, and the immediate seizure of valuables from Churches
and municipal buildings. A report produced by the battalion leader was found in Berlin
reading, “Whilst our methods are extreme and harsh, I hold the genuine belief that they
will serve as a benefit in the long term and spare unnecessary death and suffering by
breaking the local spirit of resistance against us with haste… The art we have seized will be
moved to Prague, the local area is too volatile to ensure its safety from harm.”

7. On patrol one night with two other German soldiers, the defendant was involved in an
incident. Walking down a darkened dirt road at two o’clock in the morning outside the
town, the defendant spotted an unmarked, red van that was driving away from the town,
heading east. One of the fellow soldiers remarked that a larger, Russian held town was
several miles South of their current position and was known to German command as a
manufacturing hub for armaments which were currently contributing to the strength of
the Russian front. The route the van was taking would take it directly passed the three
patrolmen. The two comrades immediately left to report back what they had seen and
seek orders whilst the Defendant remained to track the vehicle and follow it as best he
could. By the time the van reached the Defendant’s position he was alone. As the van
drove past the Defendant he shot at it, causing it to crash at the side of the road. The
defendant inspected the vehicle, finding it carried live ammunition, grenades, and other
weapons. Enraged, the defendant confronted the driver who was injured and dazed by the
crash, but was still conscious however, he only spoke Russian. The Defendant then shot
the driver four times, killing him.

8. It was later confirmed by local German authorities upon inspection of the van’s manifest
that the shipment was destined to a warehouse behind the Russian front line but had
been redirected due to a destroyed bridge on its normal route. The Defendant was
transferred back to Berlin but went missing whilst on route through Austria.

9. The Defendant was later captured by allied forces in Rome, where he had sought refuge
with Catholic Church. An allied general interviewed a friend of the Defendant who
confirmed that they were unaware of the Defendant’s identity or his past, other than that

13
BrisMUN ‘18

he was German and hiding from the Nazis. They had a general feeling of a dark history
from him and that he had taken part in various atrocities but they assumed that this was
in an effort to escape German authorities. They described him as quiet, sombre, and aloof.

10. Whilst in custody the Defendant has attempted suicide and it was later confirmed that he
had made contact with his ex-wife who had survived the war and who he had previously
communicated with as she was fleeing Europe through the Vatican City with a contact in
the Church. The Prosecutor has interviewed the wife and confirmed that she briefly met
him in 1944 as she was making her escape to Gibraltar through Rome, noting that he
looked like a shell of his former self and that she “could not bear animosity or hatred to
such a pitiful and pathetic looking creature.

11. Upon reviewing the Defendant’s possessions, including those found in his home in Berlin it
was confirmed that he had been feeling a great degree of guilt and regret since his divorce
for abandoning his wife, who he still loves. That through his fear and cowardice he allowed
her to fall into Nazi hands. He confessed to never believing in Nazi ideology and that the
work he did as an engineer was for the betterment of Germany and not for the war effort.
It was revealed that he had specifically approved projects that would be of use after the
war but were not necessarily the most useful during the war. Analysis suggests that this
course of action caused delay and prolonged the war effort, although these projects would
only have cost the Germans a matter of days or weeks and made no substantial difference
to their war effort.

12. He has been charged with Conspiracy to commit Crimes Against the Peace and War
Crimes.

Common Facts

1. The Nazi high command has been entirely disassembled by the Nazis and this is these will
be the first two defendants to appear before the Court. Consequently, the Court has no
precedent to rely upon.

2. The Allies High Command has determined that The Hague Convention, applied to Nazi
Germany during the duration of the War.

3. The United Nations and ICRC have formed a working group to produce internationally
binding rules of war, The Geneva Conventions. These treaties have not been finalised or
entered into force yet, but can be relied upon as guiding indications of what the law is or
ought to be, lex ferenda.

4. The United States of America have announced intentions to divide Germany between the
allied powers and the Allied Control Council has stated that all German War Criminals will
be detained in Berlin for the duration of their incarceration.

5. The Prosecution doctors have determined that both Defendants are fit to stand trial.

14
 The Nuremberg Trials

SUBMISSIONS & MANNER

Written Submissions are similar to Position Statements but will be much more focused on the
law. Your final submission must account for what you think the law is, why you think that and
why it applies to the situation in a way beneficial for you.

Be prepared with alternative arguments, it is possible that the Court will not accept your
primary submission and that deviations are necessary, these can be brought together in a
summary argument. You may draw inferences from the facts, but it will fall to you to satisfy
the judges that these inferences are reasonable.

You should follow this structure:

1. Issue: The point of contention you are currently arguing.

2. Statute: The most authoritative piece of law that relates to the issue.
3. Authority: The most authoritative case or author to assist in interpreting the statute.
4. Application: Apply this interpretation to your circumstances and facts.
5. Conclusion: Conclude on whether the law has been broken or not.

Referencing is done in footnotes.

Bench manner is highly important as it is imperative to always defer to the bench.

• Judges are referred to as “Your Excellency”

• Show the utmost respect for your opposition
• Answer questions respectfully
• Be aware of time limits
• Use the most reasonable version of your argument.

When presenting to the Court, try and be concise as possible, focus on the strongest
arguments that point directly as to why the indictments cannot be fulfilled and focus on that.
Try to avoid excessively technical or complicated arguments as these are the most difficult to
win on.

A judgement should provide sound reasoning as to why conclusions were reached and how
they Court reached its majority. If there are any assumptions or factual conclusions that were
made these should be revealed in the Judgement. Additionally, each judge will have to provide
an obiter dictum explaining how the judge believes their conclusions on the law will affect the
law in the future. The Nuremberg Trials acted as the basis for our modern understanding of
international criminal and humanitarian law, therefore any sufficiently decisive conclusions
reached by the Court in this matter should be contemplated and will provide part of the
criterion for the Court’s judgement.

15
BrisMUN ‘18

JUDGEMENTS
A judgement is not formatted like a resolution or other decision. It is a thought process that
should recognise facts, apply those facts, and explain the writer’s interpretation of the law and
relevant information in a way that the author’s logic clear.

Many judges write in the first person and in normal paragraphs by recounting what they were
told, what their understanding of the law is, and whether they believe the argument to be
persuasive or not.

Accordingly, a judgement should be structured as:

• The United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the French Republic, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics –against- Defendant #
• Review of Facts and summary of offences that appear on the indictment.
• Arguments presented by prosecution and supporting evidence
• Persuasiveness of those arguments
• Arguments presented by defence and supporting evidence
• Persuasiveness of those arguments
• Judges’ reasoning
• Verdict

Judges should be acutely aware of the legal principles under pinning an international court.
Your obiter dictum will require you to consider the objective legality of the Court and whether
or not future international tribunals will have sound legal precedent to make judgements
upon. Therefore, every decision and statement should be measured against the future
consequences of the Court’s conduct.

The Sentencing trial will take place in the final committee session, once guilt has been
determined. The separate judgement will be structured as:

• The severity of guilt of the defendant

• Any extenuating circumstances
• Any reason for leniency
• Sentence

All decisions are reached by majority of the Court.

16
 The Nuremberg Trials

TIMETABLE
Day 1
Committee Session 1 — Opening Statements
Committee Session 2 — Introductory Evidence, Press Conference

Day 2
Committee Session 1 — Cross Examination
Committee Session 2 — Judge’s Questions & Verdict

Day 3
Committee Session 1 — Sentencing, Press Conference
Committee Session 2 — General Debate Session

17
BrisMUN ‘18

SPECIAL INTERACTIONS
The only Observers that will be allowed to interact with the Nuremberg Trials will be those
that existed in 1945 and have some relevance to the issue.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is an agency that was established in the late
19th century to present humanitarian interests in times of war. To this day they continue to
catalogue and commentate on customary international law with specific regard to IHL. To this
end, the ICRC delegate will have the opportunity to not only contribute to the debate of the
legal committee but also the comment on the discussion that is becoming most prevalent.
If it appears the judges panel have reached consensus on a point of law, the delegate will
articulate this as new “customary international law” from which point the Court will have to
follow it, being unable to deviate from this new legal principle.

News Agencies that existed in 1945 will be able to interact with the committee as per usual.
There will be press conferences hosted where the President of the Tribunal shall determine
what information is released to the Press and current legal issues pressing the Court.

Pfizer (potential subject to Sec-Gen approval) in 1945 Pfizer had become one of the Allies
largest medical suppliers. Having supplied more than half of the penicillin to the front lines
during the final years of the war. By this point, penicillin was still difficult and expensive to
manufacture especially on a large scale. If one of the defendants is made a doctor of some
description the Pfizer delegate could act as lobbyist for that individual to be given asylum in
one of the allied countries, working to improve the production of medical equipment etc.

18
 The Nuremberg Trials

QASBATA
(Questions Advocates Should Be Able To Answer)

• What are the elements of the individual war crimes and how are these applied?

• What defences are available to a person complicit in a war crime and does this alleviate
them of all liability?

• What sources can you rely upon when examining International Humanitarian Law as it
existed in 1945?

• What is within the Tribunal’s scope of authority to decide, adjudicate, and hand down in
sentence?

• What onus of proof is placed upon the prosecution or defence when submitting evidence?

• Can the Tribunal apply the laws and customs of war to individuals?

19