The Nuremberg trials covered the grossest crimes against natural law and human sensibilities. In other words, crimes against nature.
The version of justice that was adopted required cooperation between nations. And to an extent the Nuremberg trials gave us hope that justice could be achieved.
However, it is a lot of work.
A complaint by the World Trade Organization (WTO) against US law is an example of how different agendas might play out.
The US imposed the Endangered Species Act on the high seas. This had significant implications for developing countries and their traders.
The WTO Appellate Body claimed that the manner in which the US imposed its Act constituted arbitrary and discriminatory law, that did not assure due process and imposed restrictions on trade, successfully pressed the US to change its administrative law procedures to ensure a fair review of the situations and concerns of the developing countries and their traders.
The WTO Appellate Body stated that members were free to adopt their own policies aimed at protecting the environment as long as, in so doing, they fulfill their obligations and respect the rights of other Members under the WTO Agreement.
The Nuremberg trials covered the grossest crimes against natural law and human sensibilities. In other words, crimes against nature. The version of justice that was adopted required cooperation between nations.
The Trials were as much about serving as a model of justice for a future International Court as they were seeking a remedy for past crimes.
Lately, some scholars have return to the study of the Nuremberg Trials and reviewed the purpose of the trials, This is primarily because of growing recognition that more effective global cooperation with a legal framework is needed that also addresses the relationship between the environment and human rights as a subject of criminality, implementation, enforcement, and remedy.
It is equally important to revisit the vision behind the Trials becausethe present and the future that we share globally is characterized by unparalleled major stressors that are not going to go away. A vision of fairness is needed on a global scale as a critical factor in addressing climate change.
What would constitute a rule of law on a global scale in relation to environmental issues and the question of fairness?
The best practice might be to give nature standing in the courts.
The challenge, however, is to establish the legitimacy of an International Environmental Court by representing nature, inclusive of human rights, while respecting national sovereignty following a principle of enlightened self interest.
Based on this paradigm, no single group is powerful enough or has the standing to prevent the continuing uncontrolled development and mismanagement of resources. No group can address the contributions of collusive actions on the part of all of us to the significant loss of biodiversity, failing food systems, and the widespread affects of pollutants and other public health issues. No group can judge criminality and provide a remedy.
While there is a growing awareness that regions and nations must cooperate, the mechanisms and commitment to a legal framework are not in place. Cooperation must be accompanied by consequences for violating any agreement as well.
Unfortunately, while the Nuremberg Trials contributed to the importance of International courts in highlighting justice, the Trials did not enlighten the establishment of a court of law that might serve a rule of law among nations.
Instead, nations mainly address environmental issues through treaties and agreements. Most of those agreements are soft agreements that lack the power to provide effective implementation and remedies
Legal remedies are (1) typically administered by geographically-bounded governmental systems and (2) ultimately decided by the marketplace.
However, it can be argued that there is a new global consciousness that environmental problems cannot be solved by the marketplace. Rather, they must be decided within the realm of law. Problems include water shortages, poor energy use, diminished or unfair food systems, public health, or risks such as terrorism that affects all nations and parts of the world.
Nongovernmental 0rganizations (NGOs) are critical players in bringing to light and managing legal issues. However, while essential to indigenous interests, NGOs cannot survive the changing players associated with governments and corporate interests.
Countries can agree in principle, but be less than sincere in their actions. They might balk over any serious legal commitment to a centralized authority that is a potential threat to their national autonomy.
An International Environmental Court could weigh the balance more fairly. play a central role in weighing unilateral actions against public good on a global scale.
Nations could have the same kind of interdependency that is frequently established to prevent the spread of disease. The interdependency that exists is an example of enlightened self interest. There is some understanding when it comes to global health that cooperation includes strengthening national governances to effectively fight disease through prevention.
Environmentally, there is no easily identifiable matrix to inform the creation of a court, however, there are cases to draw upon that present arguments for broader interests beyond national self interests based perhaps on the defense of nature or as in Oposa v. Factoran, the inheritance rights of children and the unborn.
The Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition (“Stetson”) held in Gulfport, Florida is a prestigious international environmental law competition that focuses on global environmental challenges. Since 1996, law students from universities all over the globe have participated in the competition. The Stetson promotes environmental awareness by bringing together law students to discuss relevant environmental law issues in a rapidly changing world.