Home Law United States law and policy on transitional justice : principles, politics, and pragmatics
II. Transitional Justice Options Seriously Considered and Actually Implemented for Alleged Nazi Atrocity Perpetrators
The IMT was one of only several transitional justice options seriously considered and actually implemented for addressing Nazis suspected of committing atrocities during WWII. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the USG and its allies also applied three other transitional justice options to Nazis: unilateral prosecution through ad hoc Allied military tribunals, conditional amnesty, and lustration. Such amnesty violated the USG’s stated preference for punitive transitional justice mechanisms, as articulated, for example, in the Declaration of St. James’s, the Moscow Declaration, and FDR’s threat on March 24, 1944. And such lustration similarly violated USG rhetoric favoring prosecution. Figure 4.1 shows the general transitional justice options the USG supported for addressing Nazis, whereas Figure 4.2 displays the specific prosecutorial transitional justice options the USG supported in this case.
figure 4.1 U.S. Government Transitional Justice Options Tree for Suspected Nazi Atrocity Perpetrators—General.
figure 4.2 U.S. Government Transitional Justice Options Table for Suspected Nazi Atrocity Perpetrators—Prosecution.
Part II.A summarizes what transitional justice options the Allied Powers collectively and the USG individually seriously considered for addressing suspected Nazi atrocity perpetrators. Part II.B discusses the transitional justice options the Allied powers—in particular, the USG—actually implemented. Part II.C explores the transitional justice options the Allied powers—again, in particular the USG—did not seriously consider implementing.
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|