Rapid Adoption of Emergent Norms

The global economic depression that developed following World War I challenged the intent of the League of Nations. Given the desperations, anxieties, and frustrations (especially in Europe), the potential for conflict was inevitable if examined retrospectively.  Following the conclusion of the Great War, many nations turned their focus internally and adopted an isolationist stance.  Moral and governmental reform, such Prohibition in the United States and Communism in Russia, indicated a philosophical approach designed for societal benefit.  However, these reforms were not universal within the community of nations at large.  Furthermore, this isolationist stance undermined the capabilities of international relief organizations to provide a stabilizing effect, which had an unfortunate consequence of amplifying existing angst.

The drums of war once again sounded in Europe with Germany’s aggression against her neighbors.  Soon, annexation and invasion became commonplace, but true horror manifested with genocide.  The international community was perplexed by this conduct – and this shock prevented any action beyond international condemnation.  However, once Germany was defeated in combat, the international community reevaluated its position and convicted participants and antagonists of the “Final Solution” with Crimes against Humanity.  Although crimes against humanity had been discussed before, the importance of the Nuremberg Trials has been underestimated in importance of shifting an international norm.

One might argue that the Nuremberg Trials were an extension of the surrender of Germany.  That oversimplification is possible, given the military nature of conduct as well as the nature of accusations.  However, a deeper exploration exposes the international cooperation that underwrote the legitimacy of this prosecution.  An international sense of justice (outside of armed conflict) was transitioning from concept to codification.  As further evidence of this codification, the international community proposed and endorsed the following instruments:

• The Genocide Convention of 1948; 
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948;
• The Nuremberg Principles of 1950 (Officially qualifies War Crimes);
• The Convention on the Abolition of the Statute of Limitations on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity in 1968; and 
• The Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War first adopted in 1949 and updated with supplementary protocols in 1977.

 The rapid adoption of these protocols, resolutions, and conventions indicates two possible rationales.  First, the collective guilt of inaction during the genocide of World War II suggests that a mechanism of prevention required international agreement.  Second (and more simplistic) – that the overall tone and norm of the global population had shifted to amplified awareness and a willingness to hold each other accountable.  Granted, this instruments of accountability, as well as ways, were far from solidified – this approach demonstrates that notions of sovereignty were being challenged.  Additionally, a degree of responsibility was beginning to collectively be imposed on protecting civilians from atrocities.