The post-WWII trials established the foundational principle that individuals and governments are subject to international law.
Established in 2002 as a permanent court of last resort, the ICC has faced accusations of colonial bias for its early focus on Africa, while its effectiveness remains constrained by UN Security Council politics.
The US-Israeli strikes on Iran highlight international law's enforcement gap
The path that international criminal justice has followed has seen considerable successes and limitations, moving from the aftermath of the Second World War to the complex world that exists today. This system, rooted in the pioneering ideas that were first introduced at Nuremberg, now finds itself in a world in which the politics of the powerful are in direct conflict with the desire to see universal accountability. This can be seen when examining the historical events that have transpired in the world, as well as the more recent events that have involved the military activities in Iran, the United States, and Israel.
The Nuremberg Foundation: A Revolutionary Precedent
The Nuremberg trials that were held in 1945 and 1946 were more than just the prosecution of the defeated leaders of the Nazi regime; it was a revolution in the way in which international law was to be perceived. As research has shown, it was in the Nuremberg trials that the idea that all governments and their servants are subject to international law was first introduced. It was a direct reaction to the methodical genocide that was perpetrated in the Holocaust. The tribunal pronounced that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.
Nevertheless, Nuremberg carried inherent limitations. It was seen as victor's justice, a court established by victorious powers to judge the defeated, while Allied actions such as the bombing of Dresden escaped scrutiny. Additionally, its influence on German public consciousness diminished as Cold War tensions emerged, with political considerations prompting the early release of numerous convicted war criminals. Despite these imperfections, Nuremberg established the essential legal and ethical framework that would guide subsequent international justice efforts.
Coalition for the International Criminal Court, in a 2016 report highlighted that the Nuremberg trials were effectively the start of international criminal law, an area which is still in the early stages of its development. “It means that individuals and organisations are held accountable for some of the worst crimes imaginable. Not much happened in the field of international criminal law during the Cold War, save Israel’s prosecution of Adolf Eichmann. But things changed after the return of concentration camps to Europe in the Former Yugoslavia. In 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was formed to respond to mass atrocities then taking place. Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established. When the UN adopted the Genocide Convention on 9 December 1948, it also invited the International Law Commission to study the possibility of establishing a court to try persons charged with genocide or other international crimes,” the report said.
The Modern Era: The ICC, Promise of Permanent Justice
Nuremberg’s principles were inactive for an extensive period of time due to the dynamics of the Cold War. In the 1990s, however, new activity was seen as the United Nations created temporary tribunals dealing with atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, respectively, ICTY and ITR. These were successor tribunals and worked in extremely difficult circumstances of ongoing ethnic conflict, showing that international justice was fully functional in contemporary societies.
This led to the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), formed in 2002 through the Rome statute. Unlike the temporary Nuremberg tribunal, it was designed as a final resort and would act when national judicial systems are unable or unwilling to deal with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. However, it faces significant challenges and was criticised as a colonial institution because of its focus on African cases initially. Its effectiveness faces constraints from its relationship with the UN Security Council, where veto-wielding members, including non-participating states such as the US, Russia, and China, can prevent or delay investigations for political purposes. The ICC represents a negotiated compromise, a permanent institution nonetheless susceptible to geopolitical fluctuations.
The Iran-USA-Israel Dimension: The Limits of Judicial Action
The recent attacks by the US and Israel on Iran starkly reveal the boundaries of existing international judicial mechanisms. During late February 2026, US and Israeli forces conducted military strikes within Iran, reportedly causing civilian casualties including children. The strikes also led to the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei which led to Iran subsequently attacking US regional bases.
Although the International Commission of Jurists promptly condemned these strikes as a grave violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, international criminal courts have remained notably silent. Why? The ICC's jurisdiction primarily addresses individual responsibility for specific crimes (genocide, war crimes), not state responsibility for aggression itself, unless referred by the UN Security Council, a body where permanent members possess veto authority. Furthermore, as the ICJ statement indicates, the proper venue for addressing UN Charter violations concerning force is the International Court of Justice (the ICJ, a distinct court handling interstate disputes) or the UN Security Council, rather than the ICC. As one observer noted, the tribunal's silence regarding such matters, whether resulting from jurisdictional constraints or political inertia, is perceived by many as reflecting not impartiality, but complicity.
Following USA’s last year attacks on Iran, Sir Richard Mottram, chair of the advisory board of the LSE's foreign policy think tank, said that under the UN Charter, states are required to settle disputes peacefully, subject to, under Article 51, the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. “Whether and in what circumstances an imminent but not actual threat can be pre-empted under international law is contested amongst legal experts. For both the United States and Israel such arguments and potential constraints are readily put aside,” he argues.
The international criminal justice system has progressed considerably from the Nuremberg Trials to the ICC. The fundamental principle, that individuals must answer for atrocity crimes, has become established as a global standard. Yet, the system remains incomplete, continuously confronting the essential challenge that accompanied Nuremberg: the struggle between pursuing impartial justice and navigating the unyielding realities of power politics. The recent hostilities involving Iran and the resulting selective responses underscore that although international law has advanced, its implementation remains heavily contingent upon the willingness of the very states it seeks to regulate.
