The Nuremberg judge

Robert Jackson, major figure in public life in the United States XX^e century, is, despite the international dimension of his career, relatively little known in France – and perhaps not recognized in the United States itself at the height of his immense career, at the crossroads of legal and political. The work Robert H. Jackson. Campaigning for justiceco-signed by the jurist Olivier Beauvallet and the historian Yves Ternon, therefore, in a very timely manner, contributes to filling this gap. It also serves as a timely reminder that in times not so long ago the United States, through leading jurists, politicians, activists and intellectuals, were essential players in international justice.

The book is published in the collection “ The common good » from the Parisian publisher Michalon. Offering short and therefore synthetic works (less than 150 pages), this collection, as defined on the publisher’s website, “ hosts intellectual biographies dedicated to all those, philosophers and jurists, thinkers and artists, classics or unclassifiable, who give us the means to better understand the place of man in the city, his relationship to the idea of ​​justice, to the democratic form, to beauty and to everything that is political “. Robert Jackson fits perfectly into the main objectives of this collection, both the questions of “ justice » and “ democratic form » are central to his journey. The only person to have been both a judge of the Supreme Court (from 1941 to his death in 1954, at age 62), Attorney General (Minister of Justice in 1940-1941) and Solicitor General (which can be translated as attorney general, an essential position in the US Department of Justice, which notably ensures the representation of the department before the Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeal ; between 1938 and 1940), Robert Jackson is also internationally known and recognized for his major role in the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946). It was about trying the main Nazi criminals. In this famous trial, Jackson was both the prosecutor for the US side and the attorney general.

A unique trajectory

Moving quickly over the first years of Robert Jackson’s personal and professional life, the introduction shows in particular how his academic trajectory is denoted by the fact that he did not follow extensive legal studies and essentially learned law by practicing it for several years, as an apprentice, with a lawyer (p. 9-10). Then, the study essentially focuses, in a completely logical and appropriate manner, on the three main stages of the professional career of the lawyer. Although sometimes intertwined chronologically, these three periods correspond, in general terms, to Jackson’s rise to prominence as an executive in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, particularly in the Justice Department (mostly in the 1930s). ; to his activity linked to the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946) ; and his work at the Supreme Court (1941-1954). “ New Deal Advocate “, to use the subtitle of one of his biographies in English, he was active with Roosevelt from the latter’s presidential campaign in 1932, then entered the Ministry of Finance in 1934, before joining the Ministry of Justice in 1936, where he held the highest position in 1940-1941. He supports the different phases of the New Deal while asserting himself as a great defender of public freedoms and civil rights – which sometimes leads him to oppose the intrusive practices of the FBI by J. Edgar Hoover (p. 40).

When it comes to his country’s relationship with the rest of the world, Jackson’s position is quite complex. Long rather isolationist, very cautious about the entry of the United States into the Second World War, he nevertheless called, during the war, “ jurists to defend democracy and rethink post-war international society » (p. 43). In June 1941, he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and a few years later, at the end of the conflict, when the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union agreed on the idea of ​​an international tribunal to try the main Nazi war criminals, Judge Jackson was asked to be attorney general for the United States. It is undoubtedly a pivotal moment in his life, and it is this position and the considerable work he carried out as chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Tribunal that makes him go down in history.

The American Supreme Court and the courtroom in Nuremberg

As attorney general in Nuremberg, he managed to impose many of his views on the representatives of other states, in particular on the Soviet and French delegations. Wishing that international justice would be done, but within the framework of a fair trial, he obtained the implementation of a real accusatory procedure, and that the “ crime of aggression » and its corollary, that of “ conspiracy » (“ conspiracy » in English), are central to the accusation. The one who will be presented as “ one of the greatest servants of humanity » in a tribute article published in The World a few days after his death in October 1954 – and signed by another great international jurist, Eugène Aroneanu – also contributed to introducing into international criminal law the essential concept of “ humanity » (p. 64). Finally, pleading after pleading, thanks to unparalleled oratory and leadership skills, Jackson manages to impose firm justice where there could have been only an unleashing of vengeance and violence. Thus, the majority of the 24 major Nazi defendants were sentenced to death (a sentence the principle of which Jackson did not support), but several were also acquitted.

After this sort of “ parenthesis » of Nuremberg, which lasted about a year in 1945 and 1946, Judge Jackson returned to Washington and the Supreme Court. He did not manage to obtain the presidency (after two failures in 1941 and 1946), but was very active there until his death – only a few months after having contributed his voice to the decision rendered in Brown v. Board of Educationwhich in May 1954 declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional and is often presented as the starting point of the process of desegregation of the southern states of the United States. Beyond this decision taken unanimously by the nine judges, Jackson distinguished himself, during his years on the Supreme Court, by his desire to defend civil liberties, but without excess, like a “ cautious liberal » (p. 83), sometimes rather legitimist, sometimes opposed to any form of excessive state authority which would limit individual rights and seek to regulate private life.

Taking a critical look at Judge Jackson

Ultimatelythe work is striking for its relevance, its clarity and a form of “ efficiency » permitted by its synthetic nature. It perfectly captures the highlights of Jackson’s career, a journey that is as remarkable as it is unique – particularly due to the fact that the judge began his career as a lawyer in a very modest environment before rising to the highest positions (“ the rural lawyer who became a Capitoline judge » p. 114), but also because he was familiar with the summits in Washington, without ever being a candidate for an elective mandate (p. 45). Furthermore, the release of the book is part of strong news, linked to the 80^e anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the start of the Nuremberg trials. It thus resonates, in particular, with another biography, in English, of the famous American judge, but also a Hollywood film on the Nuremberg trial featuring him quite extensively, both released almost simultaneously.

We could consider that the study could, at times, have taken a more critical look at certain aspects of Robert Jackson’s actions – a task certainly difficult in itself and perhaps also complicated by the editorial constraints linked to the conciseness of the work. For example, it could have been better emphasized that he was not, on the Supreme Court, at the forefront of the fight on the issue of civil rights and against the Segregation of African Americans in the Southern states. Undoubtedly believing that the work of the Court should be guided, on certain themes, by a form of restraint, he disagreed with several of his more committed colleagues.

Regarding Jackson’s work in the context of the Nuremberg trials, his hesitation to interfere in the affairs of a state, even when violence against civilian populations was proven, also in connection with the very reduced place of Nazi mass violence against the Jews of Europe during the trial, could have been further analyzed. In particular, the motive expressed by Jackson, namely “ How Germany treats its people, or how any state treats its own, is no more our business than it is up to other states to meddle in our problems. », continues to question.

In a different register, but relatively close – and, in fact, in a rather expected way – the fact that Jackson, in his very way of thinking about Nuremberg, had above all the objective of “ demonstrate that the United States (had) done nothing illegal and (to) justify its military intervention by proving that the Germans had planned a war of aggression ”, is another interesting point that perhaps could have been made. These questions will not fail to be explored in the context of other work and do not call into question the remarkable nature of the present work, which achieves its objectives and fills a real void in the French language.