Why are we reluctant to acknowledge this? Laughland’s argument is that we tend, like the Puritans who denounced King Charles, to see the world through Manichaean glasses as a titanic struggle between good and evil in which the forces for good have a ‘higher law’ on their side. Defeating ‘evil’ justifies tearing into shreds the old international system in which the sovereignty of states and the principle of non-interference in their internal affairs were paramount. Of course, intervention is selective, made not on moral, let alone judicial, considerations, but in accordance with national interests at stake. The Soviets knew what they were doing at Nuremberg. The global victory of the proletariat was to usher in world government, which would obliterate the distinction between international and domestic law and hence between military action and policing. So they welcomed inroads on the legitimacy of nationhood. For the Allies, especially the Americans, there was a more muddled, but also universalising, end in mind — a world order of sovereign states rooted in peace, democracy and human rights. Robert Jackson, the American chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, declared in court that the trial was the first in history for crimes against world peace. ‘The crime which comprehends all lesser crimes is the crime of making unjustifiable war.’
How Bush and Blair would have recoiled from that judgment had Iraq won the second Gulf war! In that event, there might have been a second trial for ‘crimes against peace’. But Nuremberg remains the only such trial. Crimes against human rights have become the touchstone. It may be that in the interest of protecting and extending those rights the people of the West, rejoicing heartily in the strength of their salvation (and superior arms), are willing to undermine international law and national sovereignty. Laughland’s highly readable book provides a concise, detailed, careful argument that they should think twice before doing so. It will provoke much opposition, but in laying out with admirable clarity the complex historical ground for an urgent contemporary debate it is invaluable.



Comments
Jock
June 4th, 2008 12:34amOne of the symbols of civilization on the shield of Achilles, Homer reports, was a killing settled not by blood-vengeance, but with a lawsuit. It seems fitting to close out war or revolution with a return to principles of law and justice; whether play-acting make-believe or sometimes not, as posters here have eruditely pointed out.
Report this comment
Herbert Thornton
June 2nd, 2008 7:28pmA fascinating report, despite a few minor inaccuracies identified by previous posters.
Anybody interested in a political trial that is actually under way as I write this can read descriptions of it, by journalist Andrew Coyne, that he seems to be up updating every few minutes. To read what he reports, try Googling - "Live blogging the BC Human Rights Tribunal".
Report this comment
David Rogers
June 2nd, 2008 7:18pmThis is nowhere near as universal as it appears. If you cherry-pick your sample, you can come with any result.
The prime example in the American experience is the trial of impeachment of President Andrew Johnson for the political crime of sympathy for the South. Johnson was acquited.
Include this in your "sample" and "poof!" there goes the silly thesis.
Report this comment
Thomas
June 2nd, 2008 4:27pmTo plan, initiate and wage an all out war of aggression may not be a "crime" but losing that war and being apprehended alive by the victors afterward just may bring the perpetrators exactly what they deserve. The fact that they got any trial at all, is something in itself. If you're not real careful you'll have me feeling sorry for the nazis and Saddam. Not!
Report this comment
Edward Harris
June 2nd, 2008 3:52pmA notable exception is the trial of Warren Hastings for 'High Crimes and Misdemeanours' while Governor General of India - the greatest trial in the 18th Century in which all the great figures of the day, from the Royal Family to prominent novellists, played their parts.
With a veritable galaxy of talent and influence arrayed against him (including Edmund Burke), it was almost inevitable that he would be found guilty, but instead was acquitted after almost a decade of proceedings...and quite right too.
I can recommend the newish book by Jeremy Bernstein on the subject.
Report this comment
Richard Donley
June 2nd, 2008 3:28pmHas the author forgotten Andrew Johnson, President of the US following Lincoln?
Report this comment
Mike Farish
May 29th, 2008 11:18amIt is not quite true to say that no defendants in any political trial have ever been acquitted. Three of the major defendants in the Nuremberg trials were acquitted - Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen and Hans Fritzsche.
Report this comment