The Conflict of Positivism and Natural Law vis-a-vis The Nuremberg Trial

Author(s)	Pragya Bhadauria
Country	India
Abstract	At Nuremberg, after the end of the second world war, the people within the government were tried for their accountability for their ‘crimes against humanity’ in the second world war. This post war period laid down the context for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the atrocities committed during the War. These historical trials were also important as they laid down the historical contexts for the future war trials in a fair manner. As per the school of Legal Positivism, law is what it is and not what it ought to be. According to John Austin, law is the command of the society, and as per this definition of Law, the nazi-laws should be laws, as they were legitimate and sanctioned by the sovereign (the Third Reich). But, will they be considered as laws, despite their inherent immorality. This question was discussed in a detailed manner in the Hart-fuller debate. This article attempts to explore the jurisprudential legal order existent at the time of Nuremberg Trial, Nazi regime’s reliance on positivism and its fallouts and re-emergence of natural law theory post Nuremberg.
Keywords	Nuremberg Trial, Positivism, Hart Fuller Debate, Law and Morality, Natural Law
Field	Sociology > Administration / Law / Management
Published In	Volume 6, Issue 6, November-December 2024
Published On	2024-11-05

About IJFMR Fees & Payment Current Issue Publication Archive	Submit Research Paper Track Submission Status Publication Guidelines Publication Ethics Peer Review & Plagiarism	Join as a Reviewer Editors & Reviewers Reviewer Referral Program Get Reviewer Membership Certi.	Website/Journal Policies Usage Policy Content Policies Privacy Policy

Contact Us		+91-9687-828-838	editor@ijfmr.com

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research