Search

Copyright of Historia y Comunicación Social is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cet article s'interroge sur la manière dont le procès des responsables et complices des attentats du 13 novembre 2015 s'inspire de l'héritage du procès de Nuremberg, qui a été filmé et a accueilli la projection régulière d'images comme témoignages et comme preuves. Cette problématique, qui est caractéristique des sociétés dans lesquelles les images sont l'objet d'un intérêt académique comme judiciaire, conduit à questionner ce qu'elles apportent dans un tribunal, en termes de « vérité », et comment elles sont reçues par les protagonistes du procès et les sociétés dans lesquelles elles ont été produites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a lecture delivered by Law Professor John Q. Barrett at the 69th Graduate Course at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Virginia in May 2021. Topics include the works of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson at the Nuremberg trial, the theme of principled legal practice, and the differences between the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT) and International Military Tribunal (IMT).

If the Nuremberg Trials represent the birth of international criminal law (ICL), then the public relations efforts of their personnel represent the birth of 'communication in international criminal justice'. This aspect of the Allied post-World War II prosecutions of Nazi war criminals has been hitherto underexplored in the literature. This article fills the gap by examining the origins and development of American efforts to give an account of the Nuremberg Trials while they were unfolding and in their immediate aftermath. It begins with the public relations (PR) efforts of Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the initial International Military Tribunal (IMT) trial of the major Nazi war criminals, and his PR 'right hand man', Gordon Dean. Jackson and Dean took a multi-prong approach to messaging about the IMT, seeking to educate their Allied partners about the strategic advantages of a due-process-oriented proceeding, while persuading the American political establishment about the nascent Cold War-positioning advantages of such a justice strategy, as well as disabusing the global citizenry of the 'victors' justice' narrative in favour of a 'global rule of law' mythology. Once the IMT trial was concluded, and confrontational US-Soviet bipolar reality became entrenched, American personnel for the subsequent Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) trials took a different tact. In terms of outreach efforts, PR now focused on German attitudes toward prosecution efforts: NMT staff used appeals to justice in a heroic effort to keep resources flowing and the trial timelines open-ended. Bureaucratically, the PR apparatus eventually flowed to the creation of a 'Special Projects Branch', which sought to present the public with key excerpts from the NMT trials and provide various German prosecutors' offices with transcripts and evidence for potential future trials. From its inception, therefore, ICL's embryonic PR-sphere served as a battleground for competing concerns of transnational justice versus global realpolitik. Between those diametrically opposed policy poles, it carved out a space for education efforts vis-à-vis the local population, preservation of the historical record, and creation of a nascent bureaucratic structure for PR efforts. These modest achievements would lay the groundwork for the modern development of the field of communication in international criminal justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on fall of the Berlin Wall also signaled the resurrection of the Nuremberg Principles and their focus on accountability. It mentions person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. It also mentions legal and constitutional arrangements where the international legal order was reimagined to include accountability and violated the sanctity of human rights.

The article presents the discussion on last remnants of the Nazi regime were being judged for the actions during the war. Topics include legal proceedings being the failure for recognizing the actions during the war of the states casting judgment on the accused; and Nazi hierarchy facing trial for the crimes with agreements reacheing all four Allied nations having the right to cast judgment.

This essay investigates how Allied postwar planners sought to overcome a set of legal, political, and pragmatic problems in the punishment of Nazi perpetrators by turning to conspiracy law. In doing so, they sought to glean the rhetorical benefits of conspiracy discourse and argument but were largely thwarted due to the specialized burdens of proof required by law. Here, I suggest that while everyday uses of conspiracy discourse can overcome the problem of assigning individual guilt in the midst of dispersed and collective criminality due to its low burdens of proof, the heart of the Western legal tradition--the fault principle--stymies the effectiveness of conspiracy law as a charge. Despite its relative inefficacy, conspiracy law has had a significant legacy in shaping postwar understandings of World War II and in providing a precedent to hold perpetrators accountable in recent postconflict trials. The continued usage of conspiracy law, despite its shortcomings, points to the limits of legal solutions in the wake of mass atrocities and the need for creative mechanisms for dealing with perceptions of individual and collective guilt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the years after 1945, German Protestant church leaders and lay intellectuals emerged as ubiquitous critics of the war crimes trials conducted by the Allied occupation governments. Marshaling the financial resources and international connections of the newly formed Protestant Church in Germany, a network of church administrators, theologians, and jurists petitioned occupation authorities for the release of hundreds of convicted Nazi perpetrators. While a generation of critical scholarship has linked the campaign against war crimes trials to the persistence of Protestant nationalism in Allied-occupied Germany, this article argues that the campaign also marked an inflection point in postwar German politics. Protestant church leaders and jurists not only echoed popular attacks on Allied "victors' justice" but also developed a novel language of human rights that would shape their later interventions in West German politics. Rejecting the dominant contemporary discourses of human rights, rooted in Catholic natural law or American exceptionalism, Protestant trial opponents recentered human rights around a theology of human fallibility in order to criticize the alleged excesses of political justice. Yet even as they promoted tendentious accounts of the Nazi past, Protestant leaders contributed to institutionalizing human rights in West German politics. By the 1950s, veterans of the postwar amnesty campaigns would defend the rights of conscientious objectors and recognition of Germany's territorial losses. The Protestant campaign against war crimes trials demonstrates how human rights gained power in postwar Germany as a political language that bridged nationalist and internationalist commitments, with ambiguous consequences for the consolidation of democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Raphael Lemkin (June 24, 1900–August 28, 1959) was a lawyer, a Polish Jew, a refugee, a humanitarian, and most of all, an extraordinary negotiator. He dedicated his entire life toward the criminalization of genocide under international law. Lemkin achieved a lot in his short life, especially considering the slow evolution of international law. Most significantly, in 1945, he persuaded Nuremberg's prosecutors to add the word "genocide" to one of the indictments against Nazi leaders. Following the Nuremberg trials, he lobbied states to adopt a United Nations (U.N.) Convention on Genocide, which he successfully did by 1948. After its adoption by the U.N., Lemkin then launched a massive campaign to convince states to ratify the Genocide Convention, which came into force in 1951. This article analyzes the negotiation techniques and strategies that Lemkin successfully employed in pursuit of his goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a speech by Lieutenant General Charles N. Pede delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the notion of discarded moral compass and values-based lawyering, importance of virtue to lawyers, and responsibility faced by lawyers involved in the Nuremberg trials.

The article presents a speech by law professor Thomas B. Nachbar delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the application of U.S. constitutional law by the Supreme Court in relation to the Nuremberg trials, and role of judicial process in law of armed conflict (LOAC) content development.

The article presents a speech by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) legal advisor Andrea Joy Harrison delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the accountability for war crimes, brief history of ICRC, and aspects of accountability that require some changes.

The article presents a speech by law professor Gary D. Solis delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the law authorizing the prosecution of Germans with war crimes and crimes against humanity, levels of war crime trials after World War II, and lack of public awareness of the trials.

The article presents a speech by law professor Geoffrey S. Corn delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the possible incorporation of war crimes as offenses in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military implication of the trial, and benefits of incorporating war crimes.

The article presents a speech by Holocaust Memorial Museum historian William F. Meinecke Jr. delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the focus of the United States v. Altstoetter or Justice Case on Administration of Justice officials, and criminal procedure employed in the case.

The article presents a speech by U.S. Army regimental historian and archivist Fred L. Borch III delivered at the symposium "The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later" held at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021. Topics discussed include the rationale behind the symposium, background of the IMT, and the Nazi war crimes during World War II tackled at the Nuremberg trials.

The opening remarks for the symposium "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: Examining Its Legacy 75 Years Later," given by Colonel Sean T. McGarry at The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia on November 19, 2021, are presented. Topics discussed include the phases of the commemoration of the Nuremberg Trial, efforts of the designers of the tribunal to protect the judicial process, and the value of public record.

The article analyzes issues associated with courtroom presentation constituting forensic practices in their own right with special reference to Nuremberg trials. Topics discussed include constitutive role of modern project of determining criminal responsibility; ensembling design techniques centered on the media-technological and aesthetic conditions of presenting evidence in the space of the courtroom and production of the international war crimes trial as the institutional form.

The article examines the trials of key German war criminals by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg, Germany in 1945-1946, particularly the documentary films presented as evidence in the proceedings. The films are "The Nazi Plan" and "Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps," which was directed by military officers and filmmakers Ray Kellogg and George Stevens. Also mentioned is the comment by Chief U.S. Counsel, Justice Robert H. Jackson, on the films.

Starting out from the question of how history and law relate to each other, the article traces the influence of historical interpretations in the making of the Nuremberg Trials, taking these as examples for transitional trials more generally. In trying to explain Germany's apparently aberrant historical evolution, special-path explanations forged by historians gained in prominence after 1933. Several schools of historical thought proved particularly influential, among them the Namierites in Britain, the Andler-Vermeil school of Pangermanism in France, and the so-called Kehrites who emigrated from Germany to the US. These ideas then traveled to Nuremberg where they informed the prosecutors' understanding of German history, leaving a discernible impact on the trials' design and dynamics. In Nuremberg's aftermath, these trial narratives would come to inform influential strands in postwar historiography, with the special path both enjoying popularity and inviting heavy criticism to the present day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses how fascist culture trip socialized with likeminded European fascists and how they intellectualized their experiences from the rally. It mentions processes of socialization that encompassed the Swedes on their trip to Nuremberg and emphasizes the radical and social aspects of fascism that Robert O. Paxton formulates as "a form of political behavior" in an emotional tension between a multifaceted ideology and a violent social context.

This article is a defense of the Nuremberg Trials. It addresses the standard criticism of the trials and outlines six principles of international law that constitute the legacy of Nuremberg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the research is analyse the role and significance of documents of the Special Command Force of Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg (Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg), considered at the Nuremberg Trial as sources for its activities in the occupied European countries in the field of confiscation and transfer of cultural property (art, other museum collections, libraries and archival collections). The methodology of the research is based on the principles of historicism, scientificity and comprehensiveness. The following general historical methods were used: historical-comparative, retrospective, methods of the historiographic and source study analyses. The scientific novelty. The location of the ERR documents in the general body of documentary evidence, involved by the prosecution as a source of coverage of Nazi looting of cultural property in the territories, occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II, as well as the problems and prospects of further cultural issues, values and archival search, are described. Conclusions. Particular attention was paid to documents relating to crimes against culture, since in the course of preparation for the trial they were referred to as crimes related to property loss. But cultural crimes mean not only the destruction, damage, or displacement of cultural objects, but also the spiritual heritage of the occupied countries. Reports, correspondence of the ERR itself, as well as the materials of interrogations of witnesses of this looting activity are briefly covered, among which were both employees of the ERR and various Nazi state and military figures engaged in the looting of cultural property in the occupied countries. The documents of the Special Command Force of Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg were involved in a small number of cases, mainly by Western Allies and the Soviet side's allegations of cultural property losses were based first on aggregate data on from the acts of the Extraordinary State Commission for Ascertaining and Investigating Crimes Perpetrated by the German-Fascist Invaders and their Accomplices. For example, the consequences of the operations of the Special Command Force of Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenber were attributed to the loss of cultural property to which it was not involved. It was found also that the role of other Nazi structures and organizations involved in the looting of cultural property was presented slightly during the process. The problems and prospects for further research on the issue of displaced and lost cultural property and archival search were also highlighted, especially the search for new documents in the archives of other Nazi organizations of the World War II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rule of law bears a special meaning in the context of the international legal order, where there is no clear vertical hierarchy or sovereign. The international rule of law strives to curb the excess autonomy of individual states for the common good. Although there is considerable scepticism about whether the international rule of law actually exists, states largely do behave as if international law is truly "law", and international obligations are also more enforceable now than ever before. But there have been and will be moments when the international rule of law is interrupted by major powers. In an interdependent world that is both capable of and prone to inflicting unimaginable destruction, the strategy for small states unable to defend themselves directly is to create the conditions that will best promote their survival, and that is accomplished by pursuing and promoting the rule of law both domestically and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on Robert Jackson's opening statement at the Nuremberg Trials in 1945. Topics include Nazi leaders trying for the worst crimes of inhumanity, brutality, torture, and murder; previewing the vast evidence of Nazi lawlessness, aggression, barbarity, and terror; and victimized by mass violence, physical isolation in ghettos, deportation, forced labor, and starvation.

In the midst of the Covid‐19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Webb's article assesses the impact of the Nazi persecution of European Jews on black civil rights activism in the United States. It demonstrates how African Americans, motivated by genuine moral outrage as well as political opportunism, drew explicit analogies between their own oppression and the suffering of European Jewry. Black activists decried what they saw as the hypocrisy of white Americans for condemning Nazism while complacently ignoring the often violent racial discrimination that persisted in their own country. African Americans hoped that in highlighting this contradiction they would embarrass their own government into taking more interventionist action against white supremacists and thereby advance the cause of racial equality. This strategy persisted throughout the Second World War and the mass civil rights activism of the decades that followed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

African countries continue to experience civil wars and other low-level violent conflicts. An issue relating to the intractable nature of postcolonial violence and how it should be resolved, is what is the potential for advancing contemporary peace processes and negotiated agreements through the notion of survivor justice? Two paradigms of justice have emerged in Africa in response to mass violence: criminal justice based on the example of the Nuremberg trials; and survivor justice based on political reform and exemplified by the cases of South Africa and Sudan. These two paradigms of justice are compared, with the context undergirding the debate and assumptions of each explored, and how this related to the issues of building peace in Africa. The guiding question is whether civil wars can be ended in courts. I argue that where a decisive military victory is untenable, survivor justice, that is political reform combined with judicial reconciliation, is the best way to resolve Africa's conflicts. The example of South Africa's political settlement and the reconciliation process in Rwanda offer examples of solutions for conflict transition to peace. Criminal justice processes – absent a decisive military victory – can act to delay and prevent peace and resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which successfully challenged the view that sovereignty provided an iron shield behind which states could mistreat their people without outside scrutiny. Topics discussed include institutions such as the International Criminal Court and doctrines such as the "Responsibility to Protect," over which human rights actors have significant influence, Islam and Confucianism represent cultural areas just as large and significant and the Nuremberg Trials and the Genocide Convention that was approved by the United Nations (UN).

Courtroom 600 in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice is one of the most iconic sites in the history of international criminal law. Yet the extensive literature on Courtroom 600 neglects the original 1945 drawings by the architect Dan Kiley, now in the archives of the Harvard Design School. This article revises our understanding of Courtroom 600 in light of these drawings. Among other findings it argues that Kiley, rather than Jackson or the Office of Strategic Services, was the main source of design decisions; that the secondary literature overemphasises film at the expense of architecture; and that the design of both Courtroom 600 and the entire reconstruction of the Palace of Justice offer valuable insights into this key moment in the history of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores right to education for Romanies as a first step to inclusion in Italy and compares Italy's legal framework on the protection of ethnicity to that of Spain and France. Topics discussed are importance of the right to education to eradicating discrimination against Romanies, denial of human rights in the Nuremberg Trials under fascism, human rights protection under Italian Constitution, discrimination in Italy's educational system and approach of Spain and France to migration.

Just over seventy years ago, three trials took place in Nuremberg, Germany. At the time, they seemed a turning point in international relations—and, indeed, proved to be. The trials involved the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, economic, and judicial leadership of Nazi Germany, those who planned, oversaw, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other large crimes. At the time, the Trials were widely condemned for using retroactive criminal statutes. The most famous discussion is what became known as the Hart-Fuller Debate. This paper argues that Locke provides the best account of the lawfulness of the Trials—at least when compared to the accounts offered by Fuller, Hart, and Ronald Dworkin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to present an overview on the relationship between the political form of sovereignty and the memory form of a government in the WWII post-war framework as described by Carl Schmitt. In fact, the discussions on how the collective memory influences the sphere of the political decision-making suppose the resurgence of the national feelings based on the understanding of the global threats. thus, such feelings are aggregated in the form of a "benevolent dictator" who makes decisions without any institutional mediation and, particularly, using the "state of emergency" (Ausnahmezustand) as a political form rather than a legal form. this way, the resurgence of nationalisms and political leadership overtakes the different populism forms thanks to the theological components in the suprahistorical creation of the caudillos, as decision-makers on the population life. Additionally, the nationalism force as a catalyzing factor for both domestic political processes and foreign policies under the concept friend-enemy moves the understanding of the politics towards a reencounter with the war memory, by means of what Carl Schmitt sensed since the 1948 Nuremberg trials, a kind of civil world war due to the triumphant image of a sort of Anglo-Saxon liberal democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the current era, obtaining informed consent is seen as a touchstone of ethical experimentation. However, the divergent ways in which informed consent is applied in practice have made courts the site of a confrontation between the sometimes contradictory moral, medical, and political dimensions of human experimentation. Arguably, the most notorious example of these competing interests clashing in the legal sphere was The Doctors Trial--the first of the twelve trials that were known collectively as the Nuremberg Trials. During the military tribunal proceeding, twenty-three German physicians and administrators were tried for their participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity--including the employment of a euthanasia program and coordinated experimentation involving non-consenting concentration camp prisoners. On August 19, 1947, the verdict included ten points defining legitimate research, the first of which was: "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." These ten points comprise The Nuremberg Code, which modern scholars deem to be the first major document to outline the principle of consent. However, just sixteen years prior to the verdict, in 1931, Germany enacted a set of provisions that contained no less adequate provisions guiding human experimentation. This Comment utilizes a legal-historical analysis in order to assess whether the international custom of informed consent in medical experimentation predates the Nuremberg Trials. The assertion that informed consent merely appeared in the twentieth century will be refuted by analysis that reveals concepts of consent have long been essential to the medical tradition. Utilizing relevant records, treaties, cases, and political responses to experimentation, and concluding that the practice of consent was both widespread and legally obligatory, this Comment will provide countervailing evidence of international custom of informed consent as having been established prior to 1945. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the end of the Second World War, the Nazi atrocities raised some very tangible problems. How should those responsible for crimes on this scale be judged? What means should be employed to execute those criminals who were sentenced to death? What should be done subsequently with their bodies? Those high-ranking Nazis who stood trial were for the most part executed in public, despite this form of public spectacle having largely disappeared in Europe. Taking Foucault’s notion of the “political technology of bodies” as its main starting-point, this article analyses the mechanisms put in place after 1945 that were intended to create the feeling that a new order had been founded and the crimes of these perpetrators atoned for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses Lysias’Against Eratosthenesas an ancient Athenian instance of the superior orders plea, a line of defence made notorious during the Nuremberg trials, which in turn became the cornerstone of modern war crime legislation. Whereas the pre-Nuremberg jurisdiction largely embraced the principle of superior responsibility, whereby a subordinate executing criminal orders was not to be held liable for them, the trials of the Nazi war criminals brought about a complete reversal of this doctrine. While remaining faithful to the spirit of the Nuremberg jurisdiction, the subsequent legislative acts (which dealt, among other things, with the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia) sought to further elaborate its underlying principle of absolute liability, in order to precisely determine the question of guilt and innocence. I argue that despite the close relationship between modern legal systems and Roman law, which fully embraced the doctrine of superior responsibility, it is in the juridical thought of ancient Athens that one finds the archetype of contemporary war crime legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seventy years after the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial, health professionals and lawyers working together after 9/11 played a critical role in designing, justifying, and carrying out the US statesponsored torture program in the CIA "Black Sites" and US military detention centers, including Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We analyze the similarities between the Nazi doctors and health professionals in the War on Terror and address the question of how it happened that health professionals, including doctors, psychologists, physician assistants, and nurses, acted as agents of the state to utilize their medical and healing skills to cause harm and sanitize barbarous acts, similar to (though not on the scale of) how Nazi doctorswere used by the Third Reich. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, reflects on the Nazi eugenics and "euthanasia" programs and their relevance for today. The Nazi doctors used eugenic ideals to justify sterilizations, child and adult "euthanasia," and, ultimately, genocide. Contemporary euthanasia has experienced a progression from voluntary to nonvoluntary and from passive to active killing. Modern eugenics has included both positive and negative selective activities. The 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg provides an important opportunity to reflectonthe implications of the Nazi eugenics and "euthanasia" programs for contemporary health law, bioethics, and human rights. In this article, we will examine the role that health practitioners played in the promotion and implementation of State-sponsored eugenics and "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany, followed by an exploration of contemporary parallels and debates in modern bioethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three Hippocratic physicians played critical roles in the prosecution of 23 Nazi doctors charged with murder and torture for conducting lethal medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. Two of the physicians, Leopold Alexander and Andrew C. Ivy, were Americans, and the other, Werner Leibbrandt, was German. At the 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial it is fitting to recall the three's influences and contributions to the formulation of strict research ethics rules, known as the Nuremberg Code. Their contributions help us better understand why they insisted on strict research rules and yet ultimately were unable to apply these rules to their own research. Exploring their contributions at Nuremberg may help us appreciate the continuing difficulty physician-researchers have with accepting public regulation of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The year 2017 marks both the 70th anniversary of the NurembergCode and thefirstmajor revisions of federal research regulations in almost 3 decades. I suggest that the informed consent provisions of the federal research regulations continue to follow the requirements of the Nuremberg Code. However, modifications are needed to the informed consent (and institutional review board) provisions to make the revised federal regulations more effective in promoting a genuine conversation between the researcher and the research subject. This conversation must take seriously both the therapeutic illusion and the desire of both the researcher and the research subject not to engage in sharing uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 20 August 1947, the United States Military Tribunal condemned sixteen persons in Nuremberg for crimes committed in the name of science in several concentration camps. Moving away from a dichotomous stance delineating true science/false science, the judges were able to outline ten ethical and legal principles to regulate all clinical experiments, which were subsequently known as the Nuremberg Code. Where most of legal commentaries focus on the mere reading of these ten principles, this paper will highlight some of the steps in the legal journey of the American judges. We will see that, unfortunately, they failed to address one of the most difficult issues in clinical trials and human experimentation: the almost unavoidable context of exploitation of any situation where a person is used as an object for the good of others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article takes as its focus the question, raised by Shoshana Felman and Dori Laub in their 1995 book Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History, of what it means for an event to be constituted by the collapse of its witness. The discussion centres on a reading of the moment Yehiel Dinoor, a writer also known as K-Zetnik and one of the few eyewitnesses at the 1961 Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, falls out of the stand and into a coma while attempting to provide his testimony. By rethinking this historical trauma as a 'collapse of witnessing', I suggest Felman and Laub shift the focus from a purely cognitive or epistemological question - a problem of knowing and not-knowing - to a question of communicating to others: a problem of address. It is the circumstance of having 'no one to whom one could say Thou', as Laub puts it ( Testimony, 82), that constitutes the Holocaust, for the victims, as what the authors call an 'event without a witness'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]