The courtroom was hushed. Cold marble, wooden benches, the weight of history pressing down like fog.
It was 1945, and the world watched as Nazi leaders—once untouchable architects of death—were hauled before a tribunal in Nuremberg. No bunker. No immunity. Just judgment.
A bold new idea was born that day: even the powerful must answer to the law.
But fast forward 80 years, and something smells rotten. Because if you look around now, you start to wonder—was international law ever meant for the winners?
Justice for All. Unless You Win.
Here’s what they told us: After World War II, the Allies didn’t just defeat fascism—they built a moral order. The UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the idea of crimes against humanity. These weren’t just legal terms. They were vows.
But then came Vietnam. Iraq. Gaza. Guantanamo.
And the silence? Deafening.
A weird thing happened: the very countries that built the rules began to step over them. Casually. Like the law was a rug they could just lift to sweep things under.
Ask yourself:
Why was Milosevic tried at The Hague—but not Bush or Blair?
Why is Israel’s bombing of civilians debated, while Sudan’s is condemned?
Why can’t the U.S. be prosecuted by the ICC, even when its drone strikes kill wedding parties?
Here's what I noticed: International law has become something like a haunted house. Still standing. Still talked about. But no one lives in it anymore.
The Moral Theater of the West
The West loves to speak the language of human rights. It's fluent in “never again” and “rules-based order.”
But watch what happens when those rules bump into geopolitical interests. Suddenly:
“War crimes” becomes “collateral damage.”
“Occupation” becomes “security.”
“Impunity” becomes “strategic ambiguity.”
When Russia invaded Ukraine, rightly, the world erupted in outrage. Sanctions, ICC investigations, speeches at Davos.
But when the U.S. invaded Iraq on a lie—and a million Iraqis paid the price—no one in Washington lost sleep.
It's not about law. It's about who gets to define the crime.
Nuremberg for Thee, Immunity for Me
The greatest irony? The Nuremberg Trials themselves declared that initiating an aggressive war was "the supreme international crime."
By that standard, nearly every major power since 1945 is guilty.
But only the weak are ever dragged to court.
Only the isolated ever face arrest warrants.
Only the defeated ever stand trial.
It’s like the old line: “When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.”
And maybe that’s what international law has become—something the powerful quote, and the powerless obey.
So What Was Nuremberg For?
Maybe it was real once. Maybe it was a flicker of conscience in a post-genocide world.
But if that idea is to survive, it can’t stay a museum piece.
Because if justice only comes for the losers, then what we have isn’t law.
It’s theatre.
Post a Comment