This post aims to spark a conversation about the importance of justice and accountability in our society, drawing on historical lessons to address contemporary issues. Let’s remember that the fight for justice is ongoing, and every voice matters in this crucial dialogue.
In a world where justice often feels elusive, the principle that all crimes must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law stands as a cornerstone of a just society. This tenet, forged and elevated by the Nuremberg Trials of 1945–1946, is not merely a legal formality; it is a moral imperative that ensures personal accountability, delivers justice to victims and upholds the rule of law. Without rigorous investigation and prosecution, criminals evade consequences, denialism proliferates and crime flourishes, ultimately undermining the social contract that binds us together.
The Nuremberg Trials, which prosecuted Nazi leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, established a transformative framework emphasising individual responsibility, universal jurisdiction and the importance of documented truth. Universal jurisdiction, a cornerstone of Nuremberg’s legacy, asserts that certain crimes are so egregious that they can be prosecuted anywhere, by any state or tribunal, regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. This principle is critical for addressing contemporary cases, such as the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023, and the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot, where denialism and incomplete accountability threaten justice.
By exploring the Nuremberg legacy, with a deep focus on universal jurisdiction, we can argue that investigating and prosecuting every criminal is essential to counter denialism, honour victims and prevent the normalisation of violence.
The Necessity of Investigating All Crimes
Crime, whether petty or heinous, disrupts societal order, violates individual rights and erodes institutional trust. Uninvestigated crimes leave victims without closure, communities in fear and perpetrators emboldened, fostering perceptions of selective justice. This is especially true for large-scale or politically charged crimes, such as terrorism or riots, where collective responses – military action, sanctions or rhetoric – often overshadow individual accountability, allowing denialism to take root.
The October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel exemplify this urgency. Militants killed over 1,200 people, including civilians of all ages and took more than 250 hostages in a coordinated assault on communities, music festivals and kibbutzim. The acts – murder, rape, kidnapping and torture – were individual crimes committed by specific perpetrators with names, addresses and life stories. Failing to investigate these individuals risks impunity and fuels denialism, as seen in narratives that downplay the atrocities despite overwhelming evidence, including perpetrator-recorded videos. Meticulous investigation is vital to compile irrefutable records, countering false narratives and preserving truth for victims’ families and history.
Similarly, the January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot, driven by false election fraud claims, was an assault on American democracy resulting in five deaths, numerous injuries and significant damage. While over 1,400 individuals have been prosecuted, denialism persists, with some claiming the riot was a peaceful protest or a false-flag operation. Incomplete accountability, particularly for high-profile instigators, allows these narratives to thrive, undermining the experiences of victims, including 140 injured police officers. Investigating every participant is crucial to building a factual record and silencing denialism.
The Nuremberg Trials: Principles and the Legacy of Universal Jurisdiction
The Nuremberg Trials conducted by the Allied powers after World War II, prosecuted 22 senior Nazi officials and led to subsequent trials of hundreds more. They established a revolutionary framework for international justice with principles that remain vital:
1. Individual Responsibility: Nuremberg rejected the defence of “following orders,” holding individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of organisational context. This was pivotal in convicting figures like Hermann Göring and lower-level perpetrators.
2. No Immunity for Leaders: The trials asserted that no one, regardless of rank, is above the law, prosecuting heads of state, commanders and bureaucrats.
3. Crimes Against Humanity: Nuremberg codified this concept, recognising acts like murder, extermination and enslavement as violations of universal moral standards.
4. Universal Jurisdiction: The trials established that certain crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide – are so grave that any state or tribunal can prosecute them, regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of perpetrators or victims.
5. Fair Trials and Due Process: Nuremberg ensured fair proceedings, allowing defendants to present defences, enhancing legitimacy.
6. Documentation and Truth: The trials compiled extensive evidence – survivor testimonies, Nazi records, physical proof – creating an indisputable historical record to combat Holocaust denialism.
Universal jurisdiction, a hallmark of Nuremberg, emerged from the recognition that some crimes transcend national boundaries and demand global accountability. The Holocaust’s scale – six million Jews and millions of others murdered across multiple countries – necessitated a mechanism to prosecute perpetrators beyond Germany’s borders. Nuremberg’s prosecutors argued that crimes against humanity, by their nature, offend the conscience of humankind, granting any tribunal the authority to act. This principle was groundbreaking, challenging traditional notions of sovereignty that limited prosecution to the state where crimes occurred or the perpetrator’s home country.
The legacy of universal jurisdiction is profound. It inspired the creation of international tribunals, such as those for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002. It also influenced national laws with countries like Spain, Belgium and Germany adopting universal jurisdiction statutes to prosecute atrocities committed abroad. For example, in 1998 Spain’s attempt to extradite Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity relied on universal jurisdiction, though political considerations ultimately halted the case. Despite such setbacks, the principle has empowered prosecutions of figures like Rwandan génocidaires living in exile and Syrian officials responsible for torture.
However, universal jurisdiction faces challenges. Critics argue it infringes on state sovereignty, risks politicised prosecutions or creates diplomatic tensions. For instance, when Belgium pursued universal jurisdiction cases against foreign leaders in the early 2000s, it faced pressure from powerful states, leading to legislative reforms limiting its scope. Enforcement is also difficult, as perpetrators may reside in uncooperative jurisdictions. Yet, Nuremberg’s precedent demonstrates that these obstacles can be overcome through international cooperation, robust evidence and a commitment to justice over politics.
Applying Nuremberg’s Principles and Universal Jurisdiction
The Nuremberg framework, particularly universal jurisdiction, is directly applicable to the October 7 and January 6 events, where individual accountability is critical to justice and truth.
October 7, 2023, Hamas Atrocities
The Hamas attacks were a calculated assault on human dignity with militants slaughtering civilians, raping women, burning families and kidnapping people from infants to the elderly. The hostages, many still held in Gaza, endure starvation, torture and psychological abuse. Each act was committed by an individual who must be held accountable, reflecting Nuremberg’s principles.
• Individual Responsibility: As Nuremberg held Nazi soldiers accountable, the foot soldiers of October 7 – those who pulled triggers, tied ropes or guarded hostages – must face prosecution, not just Hamas’s leadership. Identifying their names, addresses and stories strips away anonymity.
• Crimes Against Humanity: The attacks, targeting civilians for murder, rape and enslavement, fit Nuremberg’s definition, warranting international prosecution.
• Universal Jurisdiction: The crimes’ global impact, affecting citizens of multiple countries (e.g., American, Thai, and European hostages), justifies prosecution by any state or tribunal, as Nuremberg prosecuted Nazi crimes across Europe. The ICC, national courts, or ad hoc tribunals could invoke universal jurisdiction to pursue Hamas operatives, even if they flee Gaza. For example, if a perpetrator is found in a third country, universal jurisdiction allows that state to arrest and prosecute, bypassing Hamas’s control over Gaza.
• Documentation and Truth: Investigating perpetrators – using digital forensics, satellite imagery, intercepted communications and perpetrator-recorded videos – builds a record to counter denialism claiming the atrocities were fabricated, mirroring Nuremberg’s evidence collection.
• No Immunity for Leaders: Hamas commanders must face justice, as Nuremberg prosecuted Nazi leaders.
Universal jurisdiction is particularly relevant given Gaza’s status as a non-state entity under Hamas’s control, which complicates traditional prosecution. The principle allows states or international bodies to act when local authorities fail or are complicit, as Hamas is. For instance, the ICC’s 2021 investigation into alleged crimes in Palestine could extend to October 7, leveraging universal jurisdiction to target perpetrators. Investigating individuals could also facilitate hostage rescue, as captors are specific people in specific locations. Failing to apply these principles risks emboldening Hamas, normalising terrorism and allowing denialism to erase victims’ suffering.
January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot
The Capitol riot was a coordinated attack on democracy, with rioters assaulting police, vandalising the Capitol and threatening lawmakers. Over 1,400 prosecutions, with more than 1,000 convictions by mid-2025, reflect partial accountability, but denialism and Trump’s pardons undermine justice.
• Individual Responsibility: Each rioter made a choice and prosecutions – using video evidence, social media and witness testimony – have countered denialist claims of a “peaceful protest.”
• No Immunity for Leaders: Nuremberg’s principle suggests high-profile instigators, including political figures, should face scrutiny. Incomplete investigation of such figures weakens accountability.
• Documentation and Truth: The FBI’s investigation, analysing thousands of hours of footage, mirrors Nuremberg’s evidence collection, combating denialism.
• Universal Jurisdiction: While January 6 occurred within the U.S., universal jurisdiction could apply if the riot’s impact is deemed a crime against democratic principles, a concept rooted in Nuremberg’s recognition of universal values. For example, if foreign nationals were involved or if instigators flee abroad, states could invoke universal jurisdiction to prosecute, though this is less likely given the U.S.’s robust legal system.
Trump’s pardons of dozens of convicted rioters in 2025, framed as correcting “injustices” against “patriots,” violate Nuremberg’s principles. By excusing crimes for political loyalty, the pardons undermine individual responsibility and suggest immunity for those with connections. Posts on social media celebrate pardoned rioters as “heroes,” reflecting a growing acceptance of political violence. The pardons demoralise law enforcement and deepen divisions, with polls showing 30% of Americans view the rioters as unfairly prosecuted, amplifying denialist narratives.
The Effects of Denialism
Denialism thrives when accountability is incomplete, distorting truth and normalising violence. For October 7, denialism – claiming the atrocities were exaggerated – erodes victim experiences and emboldens Hamas. For January 6, denialism minimises the riot’s severity, undermining victims and democracy. Trump’s pardons exacerbate this, signalling that crimes can be erased, a precedent antithetical to Nuremberg’s commitment to truth. Universal jurisdiction counters denialism by enabling prosecutions across borders, ensuring perpetrators cannot hide in uncooperative jurisdictions.
Nuremberg’s documentation ensured the Holocaust’s reality was undeniable. Similarly, robust investigations for October 7 and January 6 create records to silence false narratives, preserving truth for future generations.
Challenges and Solutions
Investigating crimes in Gaza or politically charged contexts like January 6 is challenging. Gaza’s Hamas-controlled environment limits access, while January 6 faces political interference and polarisation. Universal jurisdiction adds complexity, as states may hesitate to prosecute foreign crimes due to diplomatic risks. Nuremberg overcame post-war chaos through:
• Advanced Evidence Collection: Modern tools – digital forensics, satellite imagery, social media analysis – can identify perpetrators, as Nuremberg used Nazi records.
• International Cooperation: The ICC can facilitate October 7 investigations, while the FBI and DOJ must resist pressure for January 6. States can collaborate to enforce universal jurisdiction, sharing intelligence and extraditing suspects.
• Fair Processes: Framing investigations as justice-driven, not partisan, mirrors Nuremberg’s due process, countering objections.
• Public Awareness: Nuremberg educated the world about Nazi crimes. Publicising evidence for October 7 and January 6 can combat denialism and build support for universal jurisdiction.
The Broader Nuremberg Legacy
Nuremberg’s impact transcends law, inspiring human rights frameworks, international tribunals, and global accountability norms. Universal jurisdiction, its boldest innovation, empowers states to act as global citizens, prosecuting atrocities that shock humanity’s conscience. It reflects Nuremberg’s moral vision: justice is a shared responsibility, not confined by borders. The legacy also prompts reflection on complicity, showing how “ordinary” people commit atrocities, a lesson for Hamas militants and January 6 rioters.
Challenges remain. Universal jurisdiction risks politicisation, and enforcement is difficult in uncooperative states. Yet Nuremberg’s precedent shows that perseverance, evidence and cooperation can triumph, as seen in modern prosecutions of war criminals.
Consequences of Inaction
Failing to apply Nuremberg’s principles, including universal jurisdiction, has dire consequences. For October 7, victims are denied justice, Hamas is emboldened and terrorism is normalised. For January 6, victims – officers, lawmakers, democracy – are undermined, and political violence is legitimised. Trump’s pardons, violating Nuremberg’s tenets, risk destabilising democracy by suggesting crimes are negotiable. Without universal jurisdiction, perpetrators could evade justice by fleeing to sympathetic jurisdictions, perpetuating impunity.
Nuremberg’s documentation preserved the Holocaust’s truth. Similarly, investigating October 7 and January 6 ensures the truth endures, honouring victims and deterring future crimes. Inaction allows denialism to flourish, eroding the moral and legal standards Nuremberg established.
Conclusion
The Nuremberg Trials’ legacy – individual responsibility, universal jurisdiction, documented truth – remains a beacon for justice. Universal jurisdiction, by enabling prosecutions across borders, ensures that no criminal escapes accountability, regardless of where they hide. For October 7, applying these principles ensures justice, counters denialism and honours victims. For January 6, prosecutions build truth, but Trump’s pardons undermine Nuremberg’s tenets, normalising violence. Investigating and prosecuting all criminals, guided by Nuremberg’s framework, is non-negotiable. It is the antidote to impunity, the shield against denialism and the foundation of a just world, ensuring that 1945’s lessons guide us in 2025 and beyond.
