Locating Natural Law in Modern Era: Rule of Law and the Nuremberg Trials 

Disha Jain R 

Natural law is firmly grounded in justice and real truth. Positivism builds upon the shifting sands 
of 
political power and the same is the basic understanding of the masses. Philosophical thought of 
natural law is found since the most primitive stages of social development until today, 
represented by the 
theory of natural law. The theory of natural law has gone through several stages, each of which 
carries with it the characteristics of the relevant era, showing the close relationship between law 
and society 
development. 
Post World War II, as judicial processes for war crimes, the Nuremberg trial courts were set to 
be the legal base. The principles followed to judge the alleged defendants were undoubtedly 
influenced by the naturalistic ideas renewed in this era and so goes on questioning the values of 
legal positivism. 
The debate between positivists and natural law authors turned into a debate that has to do with 
the concept of rule of law and the report law - moral. The courts upheld Natural principles and 
the 
impression of the same is prevalent even today. 
The philosophy of natural justice has strong roots in a religious tradition, but is not much in a 
clear drafted form. The only potentially satisfactory way to identify them to understand that 
natural principles can only be deduced from the world around us. The natural principle upon 
which the rules 
of ‘procedural fairness’ are based has been suggested to be the dignity of the individual. 
The 'hearing rule' and the 'bias rule' are rules of procedural fairness but the boundaries and 
application of those fluid rules are governed by underlying principles. One view of those 
underlying principles is that they are principles of natural justice in this sense. This raises the 
question of how we are 
to discern those principles of justice that are ‘natural’. 
The most fundamental point is that although the terms “natural justice” and “procedural 
fairness” are often used interchangeably, there are two different concepts involved. The most 
comfortable use of the “natural justice”, although far from ubiquitous, is to describe underlying 
principle rather than any direct rules of procedural fairness. In this underlying sense, natural 
justice reflects a long, although controversial, tradition of natural law. Many of those who 
support a principle 
of natural justice see it as a principle based upon the dignity of the individual, which informs and 
shapes the rules of procedural fairness. 
Jackson argued the Nuremberg trials would best serve justice based on a conception of 
justice involving the natural law theory. Natural law holds, essentially, that there is a 
fundamental moral law or 
moral source of law above man, the basic precepts of which are reasonably knowable. Man-made 
law, in order to be just, should be in accordance with and not violate those precepts or principles 
that 
natural law articulates. 
Seizing upon the principles articulated by Grotius, the court held that it was the moral duty of 
every sovereign state to enforce the natural right to punish, possessed by the victims of the crime 
 
whoever they may be, against criminals whose acts have “violated in extreme form the law of 
nature or the law of nations.” 
Nuremberg has left a tangible legacy in the contemporary world order. The existence of 
laws is fundamental to a society governed by the rule of law. However, the creation and 
enforcement of laws 
does not, of itself, constitute or enable a society to be governed by the rule of law. The important 
distinction must be drawn between a society governed by laws and a society governed by the rule 
of 
law. A society governed by laws, without consideration and embrace of the rule of law as a 
guiding and underlying principle, has the potential to be a tyrannical or “Police” state. 
The above inference is one of the reasons why the film stands up well after 50 years is that 
Kramer also 
resisted making his own compatriots the heroes. Judgment at Nuremberg doesn't stick precisely 
to the facts of the judges' trial, but its fictionalisations are intelligent. It raises complex questions, 
resists easy 
answers, and leaves the viewer keen to think and know more. For those reasons, it's an 
exceptionally good historical film – and a haunting one and raises fundamental questions of 
importance even today.