Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T21:14:00.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CONSIGNING JUSTICE TO HISTORY: TRANSITIONAL TRIALS AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2013

KIM CHRISTIAN PRIEMEL*
Affiliation:
Humboldt University, Berlin
*
Department of History, Humboldt University, Unter den Linden 6, 10099Berlinpriemelk@cms.hu-berlin.de

Abstract

This article reviews recent historical investigations of transitional trials held after the Second World War. It identifies three main strands of historiography. One group of studies has been dominated by the trials' participants who have shaped the perception of the trials' scope, their achievements, and their shortcomings, and pursued political, legal, or biographical agendas. A second group has treated the trials as a mere epilogue to the history of the deceased regimes. A third, more profound approach has conceptualized the trials as places where collective memory was assembled, configured, and shaped. This notion opens the debate to an analysis of how law and history on the one hand, jurisdiction, jurisprudence, and historiography on the other interact and how they impact on one another. The article compares and evaluates the benefits drawn from this research. It finds that historical analyses which take seriously the epistemological premises of the law as well as the courtroom's performativity manage to bypass well-trodden paths of interpretation which either deplore the limited, inadequate punishment meted out, or celebrate the triumphant march from Nuremberg to The Hague. The article concludes that such interdisciplinary readings help to avoid widespread disillusionment with the results of transitional trials.

Type
Historiographical Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I have greatly benefited from many insightful discussions with Daniela Helbig, Alexa Stiller, and Charles Maier (who kindly allowed me to paraphrase his own ‘Consigning the twentieth century to history’) and from the helpful comments on an earlier draft by two anonymous referees of the Historical Journal.

References

1 McEvoy, Kieran, ‘Beyond legalism: towards a thicker understanding of transitional justice’, Journal of Law and Society, 34 (2007), pp. 411–40, at p. 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Teitel, Ruti, ‘Transitional justice genealogy, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16 (2003), pp. 6994Google Scholar; Transitional justice’, in Cassese, Antonio, ed.-in-chief, The Oxford companion to international criminal justice (Oxford, 2009), pp. 538–40Google Scholar; Elster, Jon, Closing the books: transitional justice in historical perspective (New York, NY, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Teitel, Ruti, Transitional justice (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar; Minow, Martha, Between vengeance and forgiveness: facing history after genocide and mass violence (Boston, MA, 1998)Google Scholar.

3 Posner, Eric A. and Vermeule, Adrian, ‘Transitional justice as ordinary justice’, Harvard Law Review, 117 (2004), pp. 761825CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 In contrast to Arthur, Paige, ‘How “transitions” reshaped human rights: a conceptual history of transitional justice’, Human Rights Quarterly, 31 (2009), pp. 329–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, I suggest not to restrict the use of ‘transitional justice’ to post-Cold War cases as the history of the idea has older roots, notably the ‘successor trial’ as outlined in Kirchheimer, Otto, Political justice: the use of legal procedure for political ends (Princeton, NJ, 1961)Google Scholar; see also Shklar, Judith, Legalism: law, morals, and political trials (Cambridge, MA, 1964), pp. 153–68Google Scholar.

5 Conversely, the otherwise excellent Schabas, William A. and Bernaz, Nadia, eds., Routledge handbook of international criminal law (London, 2011)Google Scholar, does not feature a single historian among its contributors. Meanwhile, the historiography of human rights discourse has notably surged; e.g. Kennedy, Paul, The parliament of man: the past, present, and future of the United Nations (New York, NY, 2006)Google Scholar; Moyn, Samuel, The last utopia: human rights in history (Cambridge, MA, 2010)Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Stefan-Ludwig, ed., Moralpolitik: Geschichte der Menschenrechte im 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2010)Google Scholar; Iriye, Akira, Goedde, Petra, and Hitchcock, William I., eds., The human rights revolution: an international history (Oxford, 2012)Google Scholar.

6 For classical meditations on this relationship see Koselleck, Reinhart, ‘Geschichte, Recht und Gerechtigkeit’, in Simon, Dieter, ed., Akten des 26. Deutschen Rechtshistorikertages (Frankfurt, 1987), pp. 129–49Google Scholar; Bloch, Marc, The historian's craft (New York, NY, 1992), pp. 114–19Google Scholar, 160; Ginzburg, Carlo, The judge and the historian: marginal notes and a late twentieth-century miscarriage of justice (London, 1999), pp. 1618Google Scholar.

7 Printed in Radlmeier, Steffen, ed., Der Nürnberger Lernprozeß (Frankfurt 2001), p. 336Google Scholar.

8 Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (London, 2006), p. 253Google Scholar; cf. Buruma, Ian, The wages of guilt: memories of war in Germany and Japan (London, 1994), p. 142Google Scholar.

9 The post-1918 trials are usually seen as flawed precedents; see Willis, James F., Prologue to Nuremberg: the politics and diplomacy of punishing war criminals of the First World War (Westport, CT, 1982)Google Scholar; Kramer, Alan, ‘The first wave of international war crimes trials: Istanbul and Leipzig’, European Review, 14 (2006), pp. 441–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hankel, Gerd, Die Leipziger Prozesse: deutsche Kriegsverbrechen und ihre strafrechtliche Verfolgung nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Hamburg, 2003)Google Scholar.

10 See Luhmann, Niklas, Law as a social system (Oxford, 2004)Google Scholar.

11 The reckoning with collaboration which, in quantity and severity, far outweighed trials of Germans in the formerly occupied countries, is side-stepped, as is the Austrian case. The denazification programme affected much larger numbers than ever stood trial for statutory crimes; cf. Deák, István, Gross, Jan Tomasz, and Judt, Tony, eds., The politics of retribution in Europe: World War II and its aftermath (Princeton, NJ, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Henke, Klaus-Dietmar, and Woller, Hans, eds., Politische Säuberung in Europa: die Abrechnung mit Faschismus und Kollaboration nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Munich, 1991)Google Scholar; Kuretsidis-Haider, Claudia, ‘Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von NS-Verbrechen durch die österreichische Justiz’, in Finger, Jürgen, Keller, Sven, and Wirsching, Andreas, eds., Vom Recht zur Geschichte. Akten aus NS-Prozessen als Quellen der Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen, 2009), pp. 7483CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Hilberg applies the term only to historians; cf. Bauer, Yehuda, Rethinking the Holocaust (New Haven, CT, 2001), p. viiiGoogle Scholar; for a sceptical assessment see Haberer, Erich, ‘History and justice: paradigms of the prosecution of Nazi crimes’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (HGS), 19 (2005), pp. 487519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Cf. Rothfels, Hans, ‘Zeitgeschichte als Aufgabe’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1 (1953), pp. 18Google Scholar.

14 E.g. Ferencz, Benjamin B., ‘Review: Drexel Sprecher, inside the Nuremberg trial’, American Journal of International Law, 93 (1999), pp. 760–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, Whitney, ‘Review: August v. Knierim, The Nuremberg trials’, American Journal of International Law, 54 (1960), pp. 443–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Telford, Taylor, ‘Review: Francis Biddle, In brief authority’, Harvard Law Review, 77 (1963), pp. 201–4Google Scholar.

15 Röling, Bert V. A., ‘The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials in retrospect’, in Mettraux, Guénaël, ed., Perspectives on the Nuremberg trial (Oxford, 2008), pp. 455–72Google Scholar; Hausner, Gideon, Justice in Jerusalem (New York, NY, 1966)Google Scholar.

16 Kelsen, Hans, ‘Will the judgment in the Nuremberg trial constitute a precedent in international law?’, in Mettraux, , ed., Perspectives, pp. 274–89Google Scholar.

17 Borgwardt, Elizabeth, A new deal for the world: America's vision for human rights (Cambridge, MA, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mazower, Mark, No enchanted palace: the end of empire and the ideological origins of the United Nations (Princeton, NJ, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Criticism from another direction is formulated by Maguire, Peter, Law and war: an American story (rev. edn, New York, NY, 2010)Google Scholar. Maguire sees Nuremberg as an exception from a traditionally pragmatic, opportunistic, and frequently chauvinistic US stance on multilateralism and limitations on warfare. Originally targeting what Maguire perceives as the humanitarian ‘triumphalism’ (p. viii) of the Clinton era, the abridged second edition claims vindication by the post-9/11 turn. In stark contrast stands a recent, bizarrely unscholarly attack on the ‘partisanship and frivolity’ of ‘left-leaning lawyers’ at the International Criminal Court, violating against ‘the original intent of our founding fathers’; Voigt, Steven T., ‘The International Criminal Court's antagonism to the United States constitution and our need to articulate an alternative’, in Griech-Polelle, Beth, ed., The Nuremberg war crimes trial and its policy consequences today (Baden-Baden, 2009), pp. 157–66Google Scholar.

18 Dodd, Thomas J., ‘The Nurnberg trials’, in Mettraux, , ed., Perspectives, pp. 190–9Google Scholar, cf. Barrett, John Q., ‘“One good man”: the Jacksonian shape of Nuremberg’, in Regenbogin, Herbert and Safferling, Christoph, eds., The Nuremberg trials: international criminal law since 1945 (Munich, 2006), pp. 129–38Google Scholar.

19 See the chapters by Otto Kranzbühler and Hans Laternser in Mettraux, Perspectives, pp. 433–44 and 473–91.

20 Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg 14 Nov. 1945–1. Oct. 1946, 42 vols. (Nuremberg 1947–49); Nazi onspiracy and Aggression, 10 vols. (Washington, DC, 1946–1948); Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, 15 vols. (Washington, 1949–53).

21 Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States representative, to the International Conference on Military Trials, London, 1945 (Washington, D. C, 1949).

22 Heydecker, Joe and Leeb, Johannes, Der Nürnberger Prozess: Bilanz der tausend Jahre (Cologne, 1958)Google Scholar; Conot, Robert, Justice at Nuremberg (New York, NY, 1983)Google Scholar; Tusa, Ann and Tusa, John, The Nuremberg trial (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Persico, Joseph, Nuremberg: infamy on trial (New York, NY, 1994)Google Scholar.

23 Meron, Theodor, War crimes law comes of age: essays (Oxford, 1998), pp. 198203Google Scholar; Zimmermann, Andreas, ‘Das juristische Erbe von Nürnberg – das Statut des Nürnberger Internationalen Militärtribunals und der Internationale Strafgerichtshof’, in Regenbogin, and Safferling, , eds., Nuremberg, pp. 266–76Google Scholar; Mettraux, Guénaël, ‘Trial at Nuremberg’, in Schabas, and Bernaz, , eds., Handbook, pp. 516Google Scholar; Ascensio, Hervé, ‘La justice pénale internationale de Nuremberg à La Haye’, in Pauliat, Simone Gaboriau et Hélène, eds., La justice pénale international (Paris, 2002), pp. 2944Google Scholar, 30, however, notes ‘une forte discontinuité’ and repetitively aborted cycles of progress.

24 Frei, Norbert, Adenauer's Germany and the Nazi past: the politics of amnesty and integration (New York, NY, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frei, Norbert, ed., Transnationale Vergangenheitspolitik: der Umgang mit deutschen Kriegsverbrechern in Europa nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Göttingen, 2006)Google Scholar; Brochhagen, Ulrich, Nach Nürnberg: Vergangenheitsbewältigung und Westintegration in der Ära Adenauer (Hamburg, 1994)Google Scholar; Reichel, Peter, Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Deutschland: die Auseinandersetzung mit der NS-Diktatur von 1945 bis heute (Munich, 2001)Google Scholar.

25 See also Buscher, Frank M., The U. S. war crimes program in Germany, 1946–1955 (New York, NY, 1989)Google Scholar; Herf, Jeffrey, Divided memory: the Nazi past in the two Germanys (Cambridge, MA, 1997)Google Scholar; Moeller, Robert G., ‘The Third Reich in post-war German memory’, in Caplan, Jane, ed., Nazi Germany (Oxford, 2008), pp. 246–66Google Scholar.

26 Pendas, Devin, ‘Seeking justice, finding law: Nazi trials in postwar Europe’, Journal of Modern History, 81 (2009), pp. 347–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 359.

27 Smith, Bradley F., Reaching judgment at Nuremberg (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

28 Smith, Bradley, The Road to Nuremberg (New York, NY, 1981)Google Scholar; Smith, Bradley, ed., The American road to Nuremberg: the documentary record, 1944–1945 (Stanford, CA, 1982)Google Scholar.

29 Hirsch, Francine, ‘The Soviets at Nuremberg: international law, propaganda, and the making of the postwar order, American Historical Review, 113 (2008), pp. 701–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ginsburgs, George, Moscow's road to Nuremberg: the Soviet background to the trial (The Hague, 1996)Google Scholar.

30 Cooper, John, Raphael Lemkin and the struggle for the Genocide Convention (Basingstoke, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moses, Dirk, ‘Raphael Lemkin, culture, and the concept of genocide’, in Bloxham, Donald and Moses, Dirk, eds., The Oxford handbook on genocide studies (Oxford, 2010), pp. 1941Google Scholar; Segesser, Daniel and Gessler, Myriam, ‘Raphael Lemkin and the international debate on the punishment of war crimes (1919–1948)’, Journal of Genocide Research, 7 (2005), pp. 453–68Google Scholar.

31 For broad sketches, see David Cesarani's and Hervé Ascensio's chapters in Regenbogin and Safferling, eds., Nuremberg; cf. Kettenacker, Lothar, ‘Die Behandlung der Kriegsverbrecher als anglo-amerikanisches Rechtsproblem’, in Ueberschär, Gerd R., ed., Der Nationalsozialismus vor Gericht: die alliierten Prozesse gegen Kriegsverbrecher und Soldaten, 1943–1952 (Frankfurt, 2000), pp. 1731Google Scholar.

32 Cf. Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘Hersch Lauterpacht and the development of international criminal law’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2 (2004), pp. 804–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Annette Wieviorka, ‘Léon Poliakov (1910–1997)’, in Encyclopædia universalis (www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/leon-poliakov, accessed 27 Feb. 2012).

34 Bourtman, Ilya, ‘Blood for blood, death for death: the Soviet military tribunal in Krasnodar, 1943, HGS, 22 (2008), pp. 246–65Google Scholar; Prusin, Alexander, ‘Fascist criminals to the gallows: the Holocaust and Soviet war crimes trials’, HGS, 17 (2003), pp. 130Google Scholar.

35 Kochavi, Arieh J., Prelude to Nuremberg: allied war crimes policy and the question of punishment (Chapel Hill, NC, 1998)Google Scholar.

36 Cf. Kātz, Barry M., Foreign intelligence: research and analysis in the Office of Strategic Services, 1942–1945 (Cambridge, MA, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marquardt-Bigman, Petra, Amerikanische Geheimdienstanalysen über Deutschland, 1942–1949 (Munich, 1995), pp. 196–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 But cf. Salter, Michael, Nazi war crimes, US intelligence and selective prosecution at Nuremberg: controversies regarding the role of the Office of Strategic Services (Abingdon, 2007), pp. 109–78Google Scholar. The OSS also shielded Nazi informants from prosecution, notably Himmler's chief aide Karl Wolff; cf. von Lingen, Kerstin, SS und Secret Service: ‘Verschwörung des Schweigens’, die Akte Karl Wolff (Paderborn, 2010)Google Scholar.

38 See Marquardt-Bigman, Geheimdienstanalysen, pp. 75–6, 160–2.

39 Ueberschär, Nationalsozialismus; Regenbogin and Safferling, eds., Nuremberg; Heberer, Patricia and Matthäus, Jürgen, eds., Atrocities on trial: historical perspectives on the politics of prosecuting war crimes (Lincoln, NB, 2008)Google Scholar; Stoltzfus, Nathan and Friedlander, Henry, eds., Nazi crimes and the law (Cambridge, 2008)Google Scholar; Griech-Polelle, Nuremberg; Leipzig – Nürnberg – Den Haag: neue Fragestellungen und Forschungen zum Verhältnis von Menschenrechtsverbrechen, justizieller Säuberung und Völkerstrafrecht, ed. Helia-Verena Daubach (Düsseldorf, 2009).

40 John Mendelsohn, ‘Trial by document: the use of seized records in the United States proceedings at Nuernberg’ (D.Phil. thesis., College Park, 1974).

41 Bloxham, Donald, Genocide on trial: war criminals and the formation of Holocaust, history and memory (Oxford, 2001), pp. 109–15, 206–7, 204–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Marrus, Michael R., The Holocaust in history (Toronto, 2000), p. 36Google Scholar.

42 Douglas, Lawrence, The memory of judgment: making law and history in the trials of the Holocaust (New Haven, CT, 2001), pp. 6594Google Scholar, at p. 66.

43 Ibid., pp. 85–7.

44 Ibid., pp. 2, 6, 257.

45 Bloxham, Genocide, pp. 4–5.

46 Heller, Kevin Jon, The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the origins of international criminal law (Oxford, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Mitscherlich, Alexander and Mielke, Fred, Doctors of infamy: the story of the Nazi medical crimes (New York, NY, 1949Google Scholar. Cf. Freimüller, Tobias, ‘Wie eine Flaschenpost: Alexander Mitscherlichs Dokumentation des Nürnberger Ärzteprozesses’, Zeithistorische Forschungen, 7 (2010), pp. 145–51Google Scholar.

48 Marrus argues that historical accuracy was a casualty of the conspiracy construct which was rejected by the tribunal; Marrus, Michael R., ‘The Nuremberg doctors’ trial and the limitations of context’, in Heberer, and Matthäus, , eds., Atrocities, pp. 103–22Google Scholar.

49 Weindling, Paul, Medicine and the Nuremberg trials: from medical war crimes to informed consent (Basingstoke, 2004), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Weindling, Medicine; see also Bryant, Michael S., Confronting the ‘good death’: Nazi euthanasia on trial, 1945–1953 (Boulder, CO, 2005), pp. 92–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Weindling, Medicine, p. 106.

52 Freyhofer, Horst M., The Nuremberg medical trial: the Holocaust and the origin of the Nuremberg medical code (New York, NY, 2004), pp. 23, 68, 78, 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Ibid., p. 87.

54 ‘Opinion and Judgment’, TWC, iv, p. 490.

55 An instructive document betrays Taylor's (then) failure to understand the extent and dynamics of the Holocaust which he conceived of as ‘a Standing Operating Procedure in many fields of activity’, not worth singling out in a separate trial; Bush, Jonathan A., ‘The prehistory of corporations and conspiracy in international criminal law: what Nuremberg really said’, Columbia Law Review, 109 (2009), pp. 1094–262, at p. 1262Google Scholar. Cf. Heller, Nuremberg, p. 81. Alexa Stiller argues that a broader, genocide- rather than Holocaust-centred approach was pursued in the ‘RuSHA case’ with its focus on ethnic engineering and deportations: ‘Semantics of extermination: the use of the new term of genocide in the Nuremberg trials and the genesis of a master narrative’, in Priemel, Kim C. and Stiller, Alexa, eds., Reassessing the Nuremberg Military Tribunals: transitional justice, trial narratives, and historiography (New York, NY, 2012), pp. 104–33Google Scholar.

56 Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen trial, 1945–1958: atrocity, law, and history (Cambridge, 2009), p. 180Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., p. 218.

58 Goda, Norman J. W., Tales from Spandau: Nazi criminals and the Cold War (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar.

59 Hébert, Valerie, Hitler's generals on trial: the last war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg (Lawrence, KS, 2010)Google Scholar.

60 Cf. Searle, Alaric, Wehrmacht generals, West German society, and the debate on rearmament, 1949–1959 (Westport, CT, 2003)Google Scholar.

61 Hébert, Generals, pp. 197–8.

62 Ibid., pp. 178–84, 206–7.

63 Wiesen, S. Jonathan, West German industry and the challenge of the Nazi past, 1945–1955 (Chapel Hill, NC, 2001)Google Scholar.

64 Cf. Ahrens, Ralf, Die Dresdner Bank 1945–1957: Konsequenzen und Kontinuitäten nach dem Ende des NS-Regimes (Munich, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frei, Norbert et al. , Flick: Der Konzern, die Familie, die Macht (Munich, 2009)Google Scholar; Bähr, Johannes et al. , Der Flick-Konzern im Dritten Reich (Munich, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 See Rumpf, Joachim R., Der Fall Wollheim gegen die I. G. Farbenindustrie AG in Liquidation: die erste Musterklage eines ehemaligen Zwangsarbeiters in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Prozess, Politik und Presse (Frankfurt, 2010)Google Scholar.

66 Cf. Werner Abelshauser's chapter in Gall, Lothar, ed., Krupp im 20. Jahrhundert: die Geschichte des Unternehmens vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gründung der Stiftung (Berlin, 2002)Google Scholar, or James, Harold, Krupp: a history of the legendary German firm (Princeton, NJ, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More upsetting is Gausmann, Frank, Deutsche Großunternehmer vor Gericht: Vorgeschichte, Verlauf und Folgen der Nürnberger Industriellenprozesse, 1945–1948/51 (Hamburg, 2011)Google Scholar. Although solidly researched, Gausmann ignores recent literature and fails to address pertinent questions as to the self-stylization of the defendants. He consistently and inquisitorially confounds ‘Morgenthau boys’, New Dealers, and exiled scholars in the OSS, branding them all anti-capitalist crusaders, a notion that does violence to the heterogeneity of backgrounds and convictions held by the prosecution staff.

67 Conze, Eckart et al. , Das Amt und die Vergangenheit: deutsche Diplomaten im Dritten Reich und in der Bundesrepublik (Munich, 2010), pp. 413–14Google Scholar.

68 Douglas, Lawrence, ‘From IMT to NMT: the emergence of a jurisprudence of atrocity’, in Priemel, and Stiller, , eds., Reassessing, pp. 276–95Google Scholar.

69 Heller, Nuremberg, pp. 42, 369, 399.

70 Hébert, Generals, pp. 134–50; Earl, Einsatzgruppen, pp. 239–64; Maguire, Law, pp. 149–62.

71 Heller, Nuremberg, p. 181. Cf. Jung, Susanne, Die Rechtsprobleme der Nürnberg Prozesse, dargestellt am Verfahren gegen Friedrich Flick (Tübingen, 1992)Google Scholar.

72 Heller, Nuremberg, pp. 400–1.

73 Sedgwick, James, ‘Brother, black sheep, or bastard? Situating the Tokyo war crimes trial in the Nuremberg legacy, 1946–1948’, in Griech-Polelle, , ed., Nuremberg, pp. 6376, at p. 75Google Scholar.

74 See the anthology by Radlmeier, Lernprozeß.

75 Boister, Neil, ‘The Tokyo trial’, in Schabas, and Bernaz, , eds., Handbook, p. 19Google Scholar, notes the ‘orientalism’ of Tokyo's creators.

76 Minear, Richard H., Victors' justice: the Tokyo war crimes trial (Princeton, NJ, 1971)Google Scholar; Piccigallos, PhilipThe Japanese on trial: allied war crimes operations in the east, 1945–1951 (Austin, TX, 1979)Google Scholar, is weak on analysis due to the author's emulation of ‘historical objectivity in the Von Rankean tradition’ (p. xv). The IMTFE transcript was co-edited by R. J. Pritchard who also published several articles on US and British war crimes trials in East Asia; Pritchard, R. John and Zaide, Sonia M., eds., The Tokyo war crimes trial: the complete transcripts of the proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (22 vols., New York, NY, 1981)Google Scholar.

77 E.g. Kei, Ushimura, Beyond the ‘judgment of civilization’: the intellectual legacy of the Japanese war crimes trials, 1946–1949 (Tokyo, 2003)Google Scholar.

78 Totani, Yuma, The Tokyo war crimes trial: the pursuit of justice in the wake of World War II (Cambridge, MA, 2008), pp. 190218CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Futamura, Madoka, War crimes tribunals and transitional justice: the Tokyo trial and the Nuremberg legacy (London, 2008), pp. 6985Google Scholar.

79 Jaudel, Étienne, Le procès de Tokyo: un Nuremberg oublié (Paris, 2010)Google Scholar; Futamura, War, p. 8. See also Brackman's, Arnold C.The other Nuremberg: the untold story of the Tokyo war crimes trials (New York, NY, 1987)Google Scholar, by a US reporter who covered the proceedings.

80 Boister, Neil and Cryer, Robert, The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: a reappraisal (Oxford, 2008), p. 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Totani, Tokyo, pp. 32–42. Cf. their accompanying documentary volume The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: judgment and documents (Oxford, 2008).

81 Totani, Tokyo, pp. 82–3, 88–97.

82 Boister and Cryer, Tokyo, pp. 136–7; cf. Futamura, War, pp. 32–5.

83 Totani, Tokyo, pp. 95–6, 226–8.

84 Boister and Cryer, Tokyo, p. 114.

85 Futamura, War, p. 58.

86 Cf. Reel, A. Frank, The case of General Yamashita (Chicago, IL, 1949)Google Scholar; Lael, Richard, The Yamashita precedent: war crimes and command responsibility (Wilmington, NC, 1982)Google Scholar; Prévost, Ann Marie, ‘Race and war crimes: the 1945 war crimes trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita’, Human Rights Quarterly, 14 (1992), pp. 303–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Schmeitzner, Mike, ‘Unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit? Zur Verfolgung von NS-Verbrechen durch die sowjetische Sonderjustiz’, in Osterloh, Jörg and Vollnhals, Clemens, eds., NS-Prozesse und deutsche Öffentlichkeit: Besatzungszeit, frühe Bundesrepublik und DDR (Göttingen, 2011), pp. 149–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinke, Annette, Die Verfolgung von NS-Tätern im geteilten Deutschland: Vergangenheitsbewältigungen 1949–1969 (Paderborn, 2002), pp. 43–7Google Scholar. For the notorious Waldheim trials: ibid., pp. 68–75. The French trials are summarized by Pendaries, Yveline, Les procès de Rastatt (1946–1954): le jugement des crimes de guerre en zone française d'occupation en Allemagne (Bern, 1995)Google Scholar, and Moisel, Claudia, Frankreich und die deutschen Kriegsverbrechen: Politik und Praxis der Strafverfolgung nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Göttingen, 2004)Google Scholar. A rare comparative perspective is taken by Friedman, Jonathan, ‘The Sachsenhausen trials: war crimes prosecution in the Soviet occupation zone and in West and East Germany’, in , Heberer and Matthäus, , eds., Atrocities, pp. 159–84Google Scholar.

88 Cf. Ebbinghaus, Angelika, ‘Der Prozeß gegen Tesch und Stabenow: von der Schädlingsbekämpfung zum Holocaust’, 1999, 13 (1998), pp. 1671Google Scholar.

89 Cf. von Lingen, Kerstin, Kesselring's last battle: war crimes trials and Cold War politics, 1945–1960 (Lawrence, KS, 2009)Google Scholar; von Wrochem, Oliver, Erich von Manstein – Akteur und Symbol: Vernichtungskrieg und Geschichtspolitik (Paderborn, 2006)Google Scholar.

90 Weindling, Medicine, pp. 97–125.

91 Cramer, John, Belsen trial 1945: der Lüneburger Prozess gegen Wachpersonal der Konzentrationslager Auschwitz und Bergen-Belsen (Göttingen, 2011), pp. 117–18Google Scholar.

92 Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen trial: American military justice in Germany (Cambridge, MA, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sigel, Robert, Im Interesse der Gerechtigkeit: die Dachauer Kriegsverbrecherprozesse (Frankfurt, 1992)Google Scholar; see also Lisa Yavnai's contributions to Heberer and Matthäus, eds., Atrocities, and Reginbogin and Safferling, eds., Nuremberg.

93 Wieviorka's, AnnetteThe era of the witness (Ithaca, NY, 2006)Google Scholar, traces the turn in the wake of the Eichmann trial.

94 Cramer, Belsen, p. 206.

95 Ibid., pp. 397–8.; Jardim, Mauthausen, p. 216. Building on Shklar, Legalism, Osiel, Mark, Mass atrocity, collective memory and the law (New Brunswick, NJ, 1997)Google Scholar, argues that the specific circumstances of transitional periods justify deviations from the rule of law, yet, the ‘liberal’ conduct of trials through due process remains a prerequisite for their social benefits to unfold.

96 Weinke, Annette, ‘The German–German rivalry and the prosecution of Nazi war criminals during the Cold War, 1958–1965’, in Stoltzfus, and Friedlander, , eds., Nazi crimes, pp. 151–72Google Scholar. See also Weinke, Annette, Eine Gesellschaft ermittelt gegen sich selbst: die Geschichte der Zentralen Stelle Ludwigsburg 1958–2008 (Darmstadt, 2008)Google Scholar.

97 See Eichmüller, Andreas, ‘Die strafrechtliche Verfolgung von NS-Verbrechen und die Öffentlichkeit in der frühen Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1949–1958’, in Osterloh, and Vollnhals, , eds., NS-Prozesse, pp. 5373Google Scholar.

98 Wojak, Irmtrud, Fritz Bauer, 1903–1968: eine Biographie (Munich, 2009)Google Scholar; for a more sceptical evaluation of Bauer's conceptual work: Renz, Werner, ‘Der 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozess, 1963–1965, und die deutsche Öffentlichkeit: Anmerkungen zur Entmythologisierung eines NSG-Verfahrens’, in Osterloh, and Vollnhals, , eds., NS-Prozesse, pp. 349–62Google Scholar.

99 The books validate each other as they exploit different sources, Wittmann the trial's audio recordings, Pendas exhaustive press coverage; Wittmann, Rebecca, Beyond justice: the Auschwitz trial (Cambridge, MA, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pendas, Devin, The Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, 1963–1965: genocide, history, and the limits of the law (Cambridge, 2006)Google Scholar.

100 Cf. Bryant, Confronting, pp. 108–11.

101 Bryant, Michaelargues that the same tendency was discernible in the Dachau trials: ‘Punishing the excess: sadism, bureaucratized atrocity, and the U. S. army concentration camp trials, 1945–1947’, in Stoltzfus, and Friedlander, , eds., Nazi crimes, pp. 6385Google Scholar.

102 Wojak, Bauer, pp. 340–8.

103 Pendas, Frankfurt, p. 303.

104 Ibid., p. 302.

105 Yablonka, Hannah, The State of Israel vs. Adolf Eichmann (New York, NY, 2004), p. 50Google Scholar.

106 Segev, Tom, The seventh million: the Israelis and the Holocaust (New York, NY, 1993), p. 351Google Scholar; cf. Osiel, Mass atrocity, pp. 14–15, and Minow, Vengeance, p. 133.

107 Kraus, Peter, ‘“Eichmann und wir”: die bundesdeutsche Öffentlichkeit und der Jerusalemer Eichmann-Prozess 1961’, in Osterloh, and Vollnhals, , eds., NS-Prozesse, pp. 283306Google Scholar; Kampe, Norbert, Nachama, Andreas, and Neumärker, Uwe, eds., Der Prozeß – Adolf Eichmann vor Gericht/Facing Justice – Adolf Eichmann on Trial (Berlin, 2011), pp. 216–47Google Scholar.

108 Mulisch, Harry, Criminal case 40/61, the trial of Adolf Eichmann: an eyewitness account (Philadelphia, PA, 2005), p. 4Google Scholar.

109 For Ben Gurion's influence see Yablonka, State, pp. 51–4. For the earlier Kastner libel suit cf. Bilsky, Leora, ‘Judging evil in the trial of Kastner’, Law and History Review, 19 (2001), pp. 117–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Cf. Lipstadt, Deborah E., The Eichmann trial (New York, NY, 2011), p. 138Google Scholar.

111 Kampe, Nachama, and Neumärker, eds., Der Prozess; cf. Cesarani, David, Becoming Eichmann: rethinking the life, crimes, and trial of a ‘desk muderer’ (Cambridge, MA, 2006), pp. 282, 300–2, 313–14Google Scholar.

112 Arendt, Eichmann, pp. 119–24, 209–10.

113 Cesarani, Eichmann.

114 Yablonka, State, pp. 90, 244.

115 Lipstadt, Eichmann, pp. 152–80.

116 Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on trial: my day in court with David Irving (New York, NY, 2005)Google Scholar.

117 Cf. Douglas, Memory, pp. 212–56, and Browning, Christopher R., ‘Law, history, and Holocaust denial in the courtroom: the Zündel and Irving cases’, in Stoltzfus, and Friedlander, , eds., Nazi crimes, pp. 197215Google Scholar.

118 Mulisch, Criminal case, pp. 93, 11, 117, 119, 126.

119 Minerbi, Sergio I., The Eichmann trial diary (New York, NY, 2011), p. 144Google Scholar.

120 Ibid., p. 124.

121 A valuable anthology now tackles these problems, covering theoretical and methodological issues as well as pragmatic how-to questions: Finger, Keller, and Wirsching, eds., Recht.

122 Wefing, Heinrich, Der Fall Demjanjuk: der letzte große NS-Prozess (Munich, 2011)Google Scholar; cf. Douglas, Lawrence, ‘Ivan the Recumbent, or Demjanjuk in Munich’, Harper's Magazine (Mar. 2012), pp. 4552Google Scholar.

123 Wefing, Fall.

124 Benz, Angelika, Der Henkersknecht: der Prozess gegen John (Iwan) Demjanjuk (Berlin, 2011), pp. 234, 85Google Scholar.

125 Posner and Vermeule, ‘Transitional justice’, p. 765. However, they rightly caution against too strict a differentiation between ‘unstable’ transitional and supposedly straightforward ‘ordinary’ justice.

126 Teitel, Ruti, ‘Transitional jurisprudence: the role of law in political transformation’, Yale Law Journal, 106 (1997), pp. 2009–80, at p. 2080CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 Cf. Shaffer, Gregory and Ginsburg, Tom, ‘The empirical turn in international legal scholarship, American Journal of International Law, 106 (2012), pp. 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for an example see Richard Ashby Wilson's study of the present international tribunals, Writing history in international criminal trials (Cambridge, 2011).

128 See Teitel, ‘Transitional jurisprudence’, pp. 2021, 2039.

129 Maier, Charles, ‘Doing history, doing justice: the narrative of the historians and of the truth commissions’, in Rotberg, Robert I. and Thompson, Dennis, eds., Truth v. justice: the morality of truth commissions (Princeton, NJ, 2000), pp. 261–78, at p. 261Google Scholar.

130 Minow, Vengeance, p. 5.