The Nuremberg Trials and the Validity of the Law

The Nuremberg Trials and the Validity of the Law
Your Name
Subject and SectionProfessor's Name
Date
The Nuremberg Trials were some of the most controversial yet essential turning points in International Law. It helped set up the precedent that would be used for subsequent rulings and clarify the individual's crucial role in preserving international human rights law. Accordingly, it could be seen that the judgment in the Nuremberg trials has aimed at dissecting the validity of a law, as well as the 'responsibility' of an individual in obeying such laws. In this paper, the author would like to focus on the conflicting views of these laws and how the tribunal in The Nuremberg Trials has decided in light of these.
The Validity of a Law
As discussed in The Nuremberg Trials, the two common conceptions about the validity of law were the positivist and the constructivist theories.
On the one hand, the theory of positivism (legal positivism) believes that the laws in place are not established merely because it is considered wise, just, or sufficient. Instead, what is controlling is the idea that such law is accepted as a 'social norm' among those who believe that it is 'posited' by individuals who have the authority to impose them. As could be seen in the Nuremberg Trials proceedings, several of the accused interposed the idea that they cannot and should not be held accountable for their State's ...