Legal Definitions - Nuremberg defense

The Nuremberg defense refers to a legal argument primarily used by military personnel who are accused of disobeying an order. This defense claims that the order they refused to follow was itself illegal, particularly if it would have led to a violation of international law or human rights.

More broadly, the term can also describe situations where individuals accused of domestic crimes argue that their actions were justified or even required by principles of international law, often to prevent a perceived greater wrong.

• Example 1 (Military Context):

  A soldier is commanded by their superior officer to participate in the systematic destruction of a village known to house civilians, an act that would clearly violate international laws of armed conflict. The soldier refuses to carry out the order. When subsequently charged with insubordination, the soldier could employ the Nuremberg defense, arguing that the order was illegal under international humanitarian law, and therefore, they were justified in refusing to obey it.

  Explanation: This illustrates the core application where a military member refuses an order that would lead to a violation of international law, using this illegality as a defense against charges of disobedience.

• Example 2 (Broader Context - Domestic Crime):

  A group of environmental activists breaks into a facility involved in processing fossil fuels, causing minor damage to equipment to temporarily halt operations. They are charged with trespassing and property damage. In their defense, they argue that the facility's operations contribute significantly to climate change, which they assert is a violation of international human rights (e.g., the right to a healthy environment) and international environmental treaties. They claim their actions, though illegal domestically, were a necessary and justified response to prevent a greater violation of international law.

  Explanation: This example demonstrates the broader use of the defense, where individuals accused of domestic crimes argue that their actions were compelled or justified by a need to prevent a violation of international law, even if their government is not directly involved in the international violation.