They resemble a drawer, yet they function as almost two natural laws, hard truths as old as murder itself in the Cain and Abel story. But they are not. Genocide and crimes against humanity are a postwar, global structure that emerged after World War II. Before the Nuremberg trials, there was no standardized typing for these acts. The Armenian genocide, for instance, went unaddressed as a crime for a long time, just as the bombing of civilian populations by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 was not framed as a crime in those terms.
International justice began to form in the 1930s as the Nazis pursued and persecuted millions of Europeans of Jewish faith, driving them from their homes and threatening their very survival. Lawmakers, judges, and diplomats together confronted these atrocities, recognizing the need to respond with a coherent legal framework. In the Nuremberg proceedings, the prosecution and the allied powers of the United States, Great Britain, and France sought a new language for accountability. The creation of this language made it possible to label and pursue crimes that had previously been treated as wartime casualties rather than as violations of human rights. The concept would be shaped by jurists who practiced and studied law across Europe and beyond, and who understood the stakes of collective punishment and targeted violence.
Scholars and practitioners built the foundation for modern international criminal law by tracing the roots of these crimes and by arguing for the protection of civilians amid armed conflict. The idea that the state bears responsibility for the actions of its agents—and that individuals can be held to account for mass violence—took form through debates and legal drafting that spanned several decades. Jurists with ties to major centers of learning in Europe and North America contributed to this evolving framework, contributing to a body of work that would influence subsequent international tribunals and legal norms. The narrative of these developments shows how early decisions and definitions intertwined with historical events and the testimonies of survivors, as well as the political realities of the mid-twentieth century.
The tragedies that shattered families in Lviv decades earlier would echo in later conflicts, underscoring the relevance of international criminal law in safeguarding futures. When civilians are targeted or displaced on the scale witnessed in the twentieth century, the duty to respond with lawful measures becomes ever more urgent. The pursuit of accountability emerged as a durable standard that transcends national borders and party lines, linking past sufferings to present responsibilities. The story of this legal evolution is not merely a chronology but a set of principles about human dignity, restraint in war, and the obligation to prevent mass violence from repeating itself.
armenian background
One stark question has haunted history: who remembers the extermination of the Armenians? The moment of crisis spoken by a historical figure underlines the impetus for inquiry and documentation. As the Nazi order pressed into Poland and other territories, the discovery of evidence and testimony fueled research held by legal scholars and historians. In particular, a scholar who would later play a pivotal role in defining crime and the dictionary terms of international law gathered and analyzed these materials in the shadow of ongoing war. The examination of such tragedies helped crystallize the concepts that would later become central to accountability in international tribunals and human rights discourse.
If the act is seen as genocide by design or by systematic targeting of a group, it calls for protection of individuals against state violence during conflict. Genocide, crimes against humanity, and related offenses are distinct but closely linked categories within international law. Every genocide is a crime against humanity, yet not every crime against humanity constitutes genocide. Clarifying these distinctions became essential as legal scholars debated how to respond to mass violence and how to shield populations from abuse during war and occupation. The development of these definitions provided a framework for assessing state actions and for guiding prosecutorial strategies at the highest levels of international justice.
It was a pioneering jurist who refined the concept of crimes against humanity as a response to the Armenian tragedy. This work, alongside the contributions of other key figures in the early stages of the modern legal approach, helped shape the conversations that would culminate in the Nuremberg proceedings and beyond. The voices of these scholars, often associated with prestigious universities, contributed to an emerging consensus about accountability, the protection of civilians, and the necessity of independent judicial scrutiny in war-torn eras. The historical arc demonstrates how early debates matured into established norms that continue to guide international criminal law today.