of January 15, 1975 (40 Fed. Reg. 2971). These actions dissolved the Atomic Energy Commis- sion (AEC) and transferred the AEC’s licens- ing and regulatory functions to the NRC. The AEC, which had both regulated and promoted nuclear power, fell out of favor because of these conflicting roles. Congress believed that the NRC, which has only a regulatory function, would better protect public health and safety because it has no direct interest in the promotion of nuclear energy. The 1974 act also created the Energy Rese arch and Development Administra- tion (ERDA) to handle the promotion of nuclear energy. This agency became part of the Depart- ment of Energy in 1977. NRC headquarters are located in Rockville, Maryland. The NRC is composed of five members, all of whom are appointed by the president. One member is designated as chair- man and spokesperson by the president. There are also four regional offices. Region I, located in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, oversees the northeastern United States. Region II, located in Atlanta, Georgia, oversees the south eastern United States. Region III, located in Lisle, Illinois, oversees the northern mid western United States. Region IV, located in Arlington, Texas, oversees the southern midwestern and the western United States. These four regions oversee the operation of 104 power-producing reactors and 36 non-power-producing reactors. Oversight is conducted on several levels. Each power-producing reactor site has resident in- spectors, who monitor day-to-day operations; There are numerous special inspection teams, with many different specialties, that routinely conduct inspections at each site. Whistleblower reports are investigated by special teams. Policies and decisions of the commission are carried out by the Executive Director for Operations, who also oversees the various NRC offices, including the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Office of Investigations, and the Office of Enforcement. NRC fulfills its responsibilities through a system of licensing and regulation. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation licenses the con- struction and operation of nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities. It regulates site selection, design, construction, operation maintenance, and the decommissioning of facilities. The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards licenses and regulates the proces- sing, handling, and transportation of nuclear materials. This office ensures the safe disposal of nuclear waste and is responsible for review- ing and assessing the safeguards against potential threats, thefts, and sabotage for all licensed facilities. The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research performs research to confirm reactor safety and to confirm the implementation of established safeguards and environmental protection poli- cies. This office develops regulations, criteria, guides, standards, and codes that govern health, safety, the environment, and safeguards that pertain to all aspects of nuclear facilities. Policies and procedures for investigating nuclear power licensees and contractors are developed by the NRC’s Office of Investigations. The Office of Enforcement ensures that NRC requirements are enforced. The office has the power to give violation notices, enforce fines, and order license modification, suspension, or revocation. In 1979 the credibility of the NRC, and the nuclear power industry in general, was ques- tioned after an accident took place at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harris- burg, Pennsylvania. Almo st half of the reactor’s core melted, and radioactive steam escaped, but no major injuries were reported. NRC responded by re-examining safety requirements and imposing new regulations to correct deficiencies. It also required each nuclear plant to create a plan for evacuating the population within a ten-mile radius of the plant in the event of a reactor accident. Plant owners must work with state and local police, fire, and civil defense authorities to devise an emergency plan that is then tested and evaluated by the NRC and the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY. Another issue of concern to the public and to the nuclear power industry is the problem of radioactive waste. The NRC has pressed Con- gress for a solution to this problem. As nuclear power plants age they accumulate spent nuclear fuel rods. On-site temporary storage at these facilities turned into long-term storage, which raised safety concerns with the NRC as early as the 1970s. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 10101-10226), authorized a study of possible storage sites. In 1987, Congress amended the act, directing that Yucca GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 308 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mountain, Nevada, be studied as the only permanent storage site for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The law gave the state of Nevada VETO authority over approving the site, subject to a congressional override. The NRC and the ENERGY DEPARTMENT endorsed the Yucca Moun- tain site as geologically sound and capable of safely storing the waste for the thousands of years it will remain radioactive. However, political controversy in Congress and Nevada stalled a decision. The nuclear power industry lobbied the Bush administration for approval of Yucca Mountain and, in 2002, the Energy Department and President GEORGE W. BUSH formally endorsed the storage site plan. The state of Nevada formally vetoed the site; Congress had 90 days to OVERRULE the decision. In July 2002, Congress overturned the decision and authorized the spending of $69 billion to prepare Yucca Mountain to received thousands of tons of nuclear waste currently at power plant sites around the United States. By early 2009, the site was nearly finished. However, at that point the Obama Administra- tion announced that Yucca Mountain was not an acceptable solution for waste storage. As of mid- 2009, it is unclear whether Congress will object to this change in plans or allow the administra- tion to develop another solution. The fear of TERRORISM played a part in the Yucca Mountain decision, as Congress expressed alarm that a terrorist might be able to steal or obtain spent radioactive material stored at power plant sites. Following the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS in 2001, the NRC launched a review of nuclear power plants to determine whether there were security risks. The commission concluded that the heavy concrete construction of nuclear faci- lities made it highly unlikely that a Three Mile Island episode could occur if a terrorist were to fly a hijacked plane into a facility. However, during heightened terrorist alert periods, the NATIONAL GUARD and local law enforcement agents now routinely patrol nuclear plants. FURTHER READINGS “History of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program.” Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Man- agement. Available online at www.ocrwm.doe.gov (accessed August 11, 2003). Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Available online at www. nrc.gov (accessed July 10, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at www. gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed July 1010, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Environmental Law; Public Utilities; Solid Wastes, Hazar d- ous Substances, and Toxic Pollutants. NUCLEAR WEAPONS Weapons of mass destruction that are powered by nuclear reaction. Types of nuclear weapons include atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, fission bombs, and fusion bombs. The actions of countries in times of war are governed by INTERNATIONAL LAW that constantly changes with advancements in weapons tech- nology. Despite the fact that the U.S. dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in August 1945, there is no international law that specifically addresses the use of nuclear weapons. The Geneva Conventions, in 1949, outlined rules to protect populations during armed conflict. They require distinguishing between civilians and soldiers, and prohibit indiscriminate methods of attack that are not direct ed at a specific military target. The conventions also prohibit weapons that cause unnecessary injury and those that cause long-term and severe environ- mental damage. Specific types of weapons are not mentioned. Many believe that given the extremely destructive power of nuclear weapons, they should be specifically prohibited. These critics contend that the use of nuclear weapons clearly violates international humanitarian law regarding armed conflict. To clarify this issue, the UNITED NATIONS General Assembly asked the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) for an ADVISORY OPINION regard- ing the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The opi nion of the ICJ, handed down on July 8, 1996, is the most authoritative statement regarding the legality of nuclear weapons under international law. The IC J concluded unanimously that the threat or use of such weapons should be consistent with existing international laws. The ICJ did not declare such weapons specifically illegal, but it did state that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, leaving the issue of SELF-DEFENSE open. Advocates of nuclear disarmament contend that based on this ruling of the ICJ, the threat or use of nuclear weapons violates U.S. as well as international law. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Unite d GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NUCLEAR WEAPONS 309 States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” The reasoning is that since the threat or use of nuclear weapons violates international treaties that the United States has signed and ratified (e.g., the Geneva Convention), then the threat or use of these weapons should be illegal. Since the ICJ opinion was delivered in 1996, direct actions by the public in support of nuclear disarmament have increased. Some courts have recognized the legality of such actions. In October 1999 a Scottish judge dismissed a case against three women who had caused damage at a base, which was part of a Trident nuclear submarine defense program. The judge cited the ICJ opinion and claimed that the women were justified in their actions because they were attempting to thwart the use of illegal weapons. In June 1999 a jury in the state of Washington found four activists not guilty of blocking traffic into a Trident nuclear subma- rine base. The court relied on international law, including the ICJ opinion. The one international treaty that attempts to safeguard against the threat of nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the treaty, the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited by all states, except for the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). The treaty defines an NWS as one that had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to January 1, 1967, which limits membership to the United States, the former Soviet Union (and its succes- sor state, Russia), the United Kingdom, France, and China. Those few states possessing nuclear weapons are under obligation, as set forth in Article VI of the NPT, to “pursue nego tiations in GOOD FAITH on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” Whereas the Nuclear Weapon States pledged to negotiate nuclear disarmament, the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons. As an incentive, the NNWS were promised assistance with research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes “without discrimination.” Each NNWS also agreed to accept safeguards under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. These safeguards do not apply to the NWS. The NPT was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. Its initial duration was 25 years. In 1995 it was extended indefinitely, with a review conference to be held every five years. Nearly every country in the world, 188 total, is a party to the NPT, with four notable exceptions: India, Israel, N orth korea, and Pakistan. Each of these countries possesses nuclear weapons. Under the ICJ opinion, however, the obligation to negotiate elimination of nuclear arsenals applies to those states as well as the NWS. Despite these international agreements, several countries have developed nuclear weap- ons, and others continue to seek the acquisition of nuclear weaponry. India and Pakistan both possess nuclear w eapons, and it is an open secret that Israel does as well. In 2006 North Korea conducted its first nuclear weapons test; it conducted a second test in May 2009. It is believed that Iran is developing a nuclear wea- pon, which has led to increasing tensions with the United States, Israel, and European countries. International sanctions against North Korea and Iran have not convinced them to abandon their efforts. Nuclear waste storage has also become an issue. High-level radioactive waste is generally material from the core of a nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Most of these elements have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years), which means it will be a long time before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity. In 1982 Congress enacted legislation in the hopes of so lving the problem of nuclear waste disposal in the United States. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 10101-10226) made the U.S. ENERGY DEPARTMENT responsible for finding a site and building and operating an underground disposal facility called a “geologic repository.” The recommendation to use a geologic repository dates back to 1957, when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environ- ment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground. Based on Energy Department findings, three sites were designated as possible repositories: Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In 1987 Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed the Energy Department to study only Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 310 NUCLEAR WEAPONS located in a remote desert approximately ninety miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. In 2002 President GEORGE W. BUSH signed House JOINT RESOLUTION 87, allowing the Energy Department to take the next steps toward establishing a repository. The state of Nevada and the city of Las Vegas filed a number of suits against the Energy Department and various other federal entities. These suits proved unsuccessful, and the project went forward. However, in early 2009 the Obama Administration announced that it would abandon the Yucca Mountain project, even though it was close to completion. As of May 2009 the Energy Department had yet to formulate a new plan, and Congress had yet to be heard on the latest chapter in the quest for a storage site. FURTHER READINGS Cirincione, Joseph. 2008. Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Moxley, Charles J. 2000. Nuclear Weapons and International Law in the Post Cold War World. Lanham, Md.: Austin & Winfield. Reed, Thomas & Stillman, Danny. 2009 The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation. New York: Zenith Press. Vandenbosch, James & Susanne. 2007. Nuclear Waste Stalemate: Political and Scientific Controversies. Salt Lake City, Utah: Univ. of Utah Press. CROSS REFERENCES Energy Department; Nuclear Power; Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUDUM PACTUM See NAKED CONTRACT. NUGATORY Invalid; lacking legal force. A statute is nugatory if it has been declared unconstitutional. NUISANCE Nuisance is a legal action to redress harm arising from the use of one’s property. The two types of nuisance are private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nui- sance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of one’s property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoyment or use of another individual’s property, without an actual TRESPASS or physical invasion to the land. A public nuisance is a criminal wrong; it is an act or omission that obstructs, damages, or inconveniences the rights of the community. Public Nuisance The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals, safety, comf ort, convenience, or welfare of a community. Violators may be punished by a criminal sentence, a fine, or both. A DEFENDANT may also be required to remove a nuisance or to pay the costs of removal. For example, a manufacturer who has polluted a stream might be fined and might also be ordered to pay the cost of cleanup. Public nuisances may interfere with public health, such as in the keeping of diseased animals or a malarial pond. Public safety nuisances include shooting fireworks in the streets, storing explosives, practicing medicine without a license, or harboring a vicious dog. Houses of PROSTITUTION, illegal liquor establish- ments, GAMING houses, and unlicensed prizefights are examples of nuisances that interfere with public morals. Obstructing a highway or creating a condition that makes travel unsafe or highly disagreeable are examples of nuisances threaten- ing the public convenience. A public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of citizens. No civil remedy exist s for a private citizen harmed by a public nuisance, even if his or her harm was greater than the harm suffered by others; a criminal prosecution is the exclu- sive remedy. However, if the individual suffers harm that is different from that suffered by the general public, the individual may maintain a TORT ACTION for damages. For example, if dynamiting has thrown a large boulder onto a public highway, those who use the highway cannot maintain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. However, a motorist who is injured from colliding with the boulder may bring a tort action for pe rsonal injuries. Some nuisances can be both public and private in certain circumstances where the public nuisance substantially interferes with the use of an individual’s adjoining land. For example, POLLUTION of a river might constitute both a public and a private nuisance, which is known as a mixed nuisance. Private Nuisance A private nuisance is an interference with a person’s enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NUISANCE 311 rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation. Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condi- tion of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may disturb an occupant’s mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred. An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person’s land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable pre- cautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children. Trespass is sometimes confused with nui- sance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one’s right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor’s boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance. Legal Responsibility A private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will examine three factors: the defendant’s fault, w hether there has been a substantial interference with the plain- tiff’s interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct. Fault Fault means that the defendant inten- tionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plain tiff’s use and enjoyment of the land or that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substantial risk of future harm to the plaintiff’s interest. For example, a defendant who con- tinues to spray chemicals into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff’s land is deemed to be intending that result. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establish fault. Substantial Interference The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff’s interest must be substantial. Determining sub- stantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconve- nience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A PLAINTIFF cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant’s conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless. Reasonableness of Defendant’sConductIf the interference with the plaintiff’s interest is substantial, a determination must then be made that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a BALANCING process weighing the respec tive interests of both parties. The law recognizes that the activities of others must be accommodated to a certain exte nt, particularly in matters of industry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of the harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the useful- ness of the conduct. The following are factors to be considered: n Extent and duration of the disturbance; n Nature of the harm; n Social value of the plaintiff’suseofhisor her property or other interest; n Burden to the plaintiff in preventing the harm; n Value of the defendant’s conduct, in general and to the particular community; n Motivation of the defendant; n Feasibility of the defendant’s mitigating or preventing the harm; n Locality and suitability of the uses of the land by both parties. ZONING boards use these factors to enact restrictions of property uses in specific loca- tions. In this way, zoning laws work to prohibit public nuisances and to maintain the quality of a neighborhood. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 312 NUISANCE Defenses In an attempt to escape liability, a defendant may argue that legislation (such as zoning laws or licenses) authorizes a particular activity. Legis- lative authority will not excuse a defendant from liability if the conduct is unreasonable. A defendant may not escape liability by arguing that others are also contributing to the harm; damages will be apportioned according to a defendant’s share of the blame. Moreover, a defendant is liable even where his or her actions without the actions of others would not have constituted a nuisance. Defendants sometimes argue that a plaintiff “came to a nuisance” by moving onto land next to an already operating source of interference. A new owner is entitled to the reason able use and enjoyment of his or her land the same as anyone else, but the argument may be consid- ered in determining the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct. It may also have an impact in determining damages because the purchase price may have reflected the existence of the nuisance. Remedies Redress for nuisance is commonly monetary damages. An INJUNCTION or abatement may also be proper under certain circumstances. An injunction orders a defendant to stop, remove, restrain, or restrict a nuisance or abandon plans for a threatened nuisance. In public nuisance cases, a fine or sentence may be imposed, in addition to abatement or injunctive relief. Injunction is a drastic remedy, used only when damage or the threat of damage is irre- parable and not satisfactorily compensable only by monetary damages. The court examines the economic hardships to the parties and the interest of the public in allowing the continua- tion of the enterprise. A SELF-HELP remedy, abatement by the plaintiff, is available under limited circum- stances. This privilege must be exercised within a reasonable time after learning of the nuisance and usually requires notice to the defendant and the defendant’s failure to act. REASONABLE FORCE may be used to employ the abatement, and a plaintiff may be liable for unreasonable or unnecessary damages. For example, dead tree limbs extending dangerously over a neighbor’s house may be removed by the neighbor in danger, after notifying the offending landowner of the nuisance. In cases where an immediate danger to health, property, or life exists, no notification is necessary. FURTHER READINGS Cleary, Joseph W. 2002. “Municipalities versus Gun Manu- facturers: Why Public Nuisance Claims Just Do Not Work.” University of Baltimore Law Review 31 (spring). Dodson, Robert D. 2002. “Rethinking Private Nuisance Law: Recognizing Esthetic Nuisances in the New Millen- nium.” South Carolina Environmental Law Journal 10 (summer). Fischel, William A. 1985. The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Gordley, James. Foundations of Private Law: Property, Tort, Contract, Unjust Enrichment. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Paul, Ellen Frankel, and Howard Dickman, eds. 1990. Liberty, Property, and the Future of Constitutional Development. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. Scott, Michael S. 2001. Loud Car Stereos. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Wade, John W., et al. 1994. Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz’s Cases and Materials on Torts. 9th ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press. Weaver, Russell L. 2009. Mastering Tort Law. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. CROSS REFERENCES Land-Use Control; Liability; Tort Law. NULL Of no legal validity, force, or effect; nothing. As used in the phrase null and void, refers to something that binds no one or is incapable of giving rise to any rights or duties under any circumstances. Louisiana CIVIL LAW distinguishes between things (contracts, judgments, etc.) that are absolutely null (because they are against the law or PUBLIC POLICY; e.g., a bigamous marriage) and things that are relatively null (e.g., a marriage that is annulled to end its legal consequences for the parties). NUNC PRO TUNC [Latin, Now for then.] When courts take some action nunc pro tunc, that action has retroactive legal effect, as though it had been performed at a particular, earlier date. The most common use of nunc pro tunc is to correct past clerical errors, or omissions made by the court, that may hinder the efficient operation of the legal system. For example, if the written record of a trial court’s judgment failed to correctly recite the judgment as the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NUNC PRO TUNC 313 court rendered it, the court has the inherent power to change the record at a later date to reflect what happened at trial. The decision, as corrected, would be given legal force from the time of the initial decision so that neither party is prejudiced, or harmed, by the error. The purpose of nunc pro tunc is to correct errors or omissions to achieve the results intended by the court at the earlier time. NUNCUPATIVE WILL An oral will, sometimes known as a “deathbed will”; the spoken expression of a person’s wishes regarding his or her personal property or estate, made when death is imminent. Nuncupative wills are invalid in most states, and the states that allow them place limits on the amounts that can be transferred as well as various requirements for transcribing them and proving their authenticity and validity. FURTHER READINGS Hower, Dennis R. and Peter T. Kahn. 2007. Wills, Trusts and Estate Administration. 6th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Thomas Delmar Learning. NUREMBERG TRIALS The Nuremberg trials were a series of trials held between 1945 and 1949 in which the Allies prosecuted German military leaders, political officials, industrialists, and financiers for crimes they had committed during WORLD WAR II. The first trial took place in Nuremberg, Germany, and involved 24 top-ranking survi- vors of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party). The subsequent trials were held throughout Germany and involved approx- imately two hundred additional defendants, including Nazi physicians who performed vile experiments on human subjects, concentration camp commandants who ordere d the exter- mination of their prisoners, and judges who upheld Nazi practices. World War II began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Over the next few years, the European Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Alba- nia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania) success- fully invaded and occupied France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Yugo- slavia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, and the Nether- lands. But when Adolf Hitler’s troops invaded the Soviet Union, the Nazi war machine stalled. By the end of the war, the Axis power s were battered and beleaguered, and in 1945 they unconditionally surrendered to the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France (the four Allied powers). By the time the Axis powers surrendered and the war ended, the Third Reich had left an indelible imprint on the world. During Germany’s attempted conquest and occupation of Europe and Asia, the Nazis tortured, starved, tormented, and slaughtered more than six million Jews and an estimated five to six million others, including Catholics, dissenters, intelli- gentsia, nobility, homosexuals, physically and mentally handicapped individuals, and others. As part of their systematic effort to extinguish persons they deemed subversive, dangerous, impure, or inferior, the Nazis constructed labor, concentration, and extermination camps throughout Europe. At the extermination camps, they murdered their victims in gas chambers and incinerated their bodies. Prison- ers who escaped this fate were deported to Nazi labor camps where they were compelled upon threat of death to work for the Third Reich. The Allies had been discussing the idea of punishing war criminals since 1943 when U.S. president FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, British prime minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet premier JOSEPH STALIN signed the Moscow Declaration promising to hold the Axis powers, particularly Germany, Italy, and Japan, responsible for the atrocities they committed during World War II. In 1944 Roosevelt and Churchill briefly consid- ered the idea of summarily executing t he highest-ranking members of the Third Reich without a trial or legal proceeding of any kind. However, by June 1945, when delegations from the four Allied powers gathered in London at the International Conference of Military Trials, the U.S. representatives firmly believed that the Nazi leaders could not be executed without first being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in a judicial proceeding. Principles of justice, fairness, and due process, these delegates from the United States argued, required no less. U.S. leaders also feared that the Allies would be perceived as hypocritical for denying the vanquished powers the same basic legal rights that were denied to those persons summarily executed by Germany, Italy, and Japan during the war. On August 8, 1945, the four Allied powers signed a convention called the Agreement for GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 314 NUNCUPATIVE WILL the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis Powers, which set forth the parameters by which the accused would be tried. Under this convention, which is sometimes referred to as the London Agreement or Nuremberg Charter, the Allies would conduct the trials of leaders of the European Axis powers in Nuremberg, and would subsequently prosecute lower-ranking officials and less important figures in the four occupied zones of Germany. American military tribunals in the South Pacific, under the com- mand of General Douglas MacArthur, tried accused Japanese war criminals. The London Agreement al so established the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which was a panel of eight judges, two named by each of the four Allied powers. One judge from each country actively presided at trial, and the other four sat on the panel as alternates. The four Allied powers also selected the prosecutors, who agreed to pursue a conviction against the defendants on behalf of the newly formed UNITED NATIONS. Under the Nuremberg Charter, each DEFEN- DANT accused of a war crime was afforded the right to be represented by an attorney of his choice. The accused war criminals were pre- sumed innocent by the tribunal and could not be convicted until their guilt was proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT . In addition, the defendants were guarant eed the right to challenge incri- minating evidence, cross-examine adverse wit- nesses, and introduce exculpatory evidence of their own. The court appointed interpreters to translate the proceedings into four languages: French, German, Russian, and English. Written evidence submitted by the prosecution was translated into the native language of each defendant. When considering the admissibility of parti- cular documents or testimony, the IMT was not bound by technical rules of evidence common to Anglo-American systems of justice. The Twenty of the 24 defendants at the Nuremberg Trials listen to the hearings. Eighteen of the Nazi officials indicted by the International Military Tribunal were convicted; three were acquitted. USHMM PHOTO ARCHIVES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NUREMBERG TRIALS 315 tribunal retained discretion to evaluate HEARSAY and other forms of evidence that are normally considered unreliable in the United States and Great Britain. The IMT made all of its decisions by a majority vote of the four judges. On issues that divided the judges equally, the president of the court, Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence from Great Britain, was endowed with the deciding vote. In all other situations, a vote cast by Lawrence carried no greater weight than a vote cast by Soviet judge Ion Nikitchenko, French judge Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, American judge FRANCIS BIDDLE, or any of the alternates. The IMT decisions, including any rulings, judg- ments, or sentences, were final and could not be appealed. Neither the defense nor the prosecution was permitted to challenge the legal, political, or military authority of the court. The IMT said that its jurisdiction stemmed from the London Agreement that was promulgated by the Allies pursuant to their inherent legislative powers over the conquered nations, which had uncon- ditionally surrendered. According to the tribu- nal, each Ally possessed the unqualified right to legislate over the territory that it occupied. By establishing the IMT, the court said, the Allies “had done together what any one of them might have done singly.” The IMT was given authority to hear four counts of criminal complaints: CONSPIRACY, crimes against peace, WAR CRIMES, and crimes against humanity. Count I encompassed conspir- acies to commit crimes against peace, whereas count II covered persons who committed such crimes in their individual capacities. Crimes against peace included the planning, prepara- tion, initiation, and waging of aggressive war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Crimes against peace differed from other war crimes, the tribunal said, in that they represented the “accumulated evil” of the Axis powers. Count III consisted of war crimes commit- ted in violation of the laws and customs of war as accepted and practiced around the world. This count aimed to punish those individuals who were responsible for issuing or executing orders that resulted in the plundering of public and private property, the wanton destruction of European cities and villages, the MURDER of captured Allied soldiers, and the CONSCRIPTION of civilians in occupied territories for DEPORTA- TION to German labor camps. Count IV consisted of crimes against hu- manity, including inhumane acts, enslavement, murder, and mass extermination committed against civilian populations, as well as every form of political, racial, and religious persecution carried out in furtherance of a crime punishable by the IMT. This count aimed to punish the most notorious crimes committed by the Nazi regime, such as GENOCIDE and torture. Early in the trial, however, the IMT ruled that the court did not have authority to try the defendants for crimes they committed before 1939 when World War II began. Many of the prospective Nazi defendants were dead or could not be found after the war. ADOLF HITLER, the dictator of Germany who was the emotional and intellectual catalyst behind most of the war crimes committed by the Nuremberg defendants, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS (Schutzstaffel, or Blackshirts, the Nazi organization in charge of the concentration camps and the Gestapo, the German secret police), and Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, had all killed themselves during the final days of the war. BENITO MUSSOLINI, dictator of Italy, was shot and hanged by his own people in Milan in April 1945. Other German officials such as Karl Adolf Eichmann, a lieutenant colonel in the SS who was the architect of Hitler’s “final solution” to exterminate European Jewry, and Josef Mengele, a physician who performed barbaric experiments on prisoners at the concen- tration camp in A uschwitz, Poland, eluded the Allies by fleeing Germany after the war. Not all of the Nazi leadership was able to escape justice. Twenty-four Nazi officials were indicted under the Nuremberg Charter for war crimes. The tribunal convicted 18 of the defendants and acquitted three defendants (Hjalmar H. G. Schacht, president of the German Central Bank; Hans Fritzsche, propaganda min- ister for German radio; and Franz von Papen, vice chancellor of Germany). One defendant (Robert Ley, leader of the Nazi Labor Front) committed SUICIDE before the proceedings began; one defendant (Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, a German military industrialist) was deemed mentally and physi- cally incompetent to stand trial; and one defendant (Martin Bormann, Hitler’s secretary and head of the Nazi Party Chancellery) was GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 316 NUREMBERG TRIALS tried and convicted in absentia because his whereabouts were unknown. The trial began on November 20, 1945, and concluded on October 1, 1946. Thirty-three witnesses testified for the prosecution. Eighty witnesses testified for the defense, including 19 of the defendants. An addit ional 140 witnesses provided evidence for the defense through written interrogatories. The prosecution intro- duced written evidence of its own, including original military, diplomatic, and government files of the Nazi regime that fell into the hands of the Allies after the collapse of the Third Reich. ROBERT H. JACKSON, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, led the prosecution team. President HARRY S. TRUMAN had asked Jackson to assemble a staff of U.S. attorneys to investigate alleged war crimes and present evidence against the defendants. Jackson was joined on the prosecution team by Roman Rudenko, François de Menthon, and Sir Hartley Shawcross, the chief prosecutors for Russia, France, and Great Britain, respectively. Each of the four powers employed a number of assistant prosecutors as well. Jackson commenced the trial with an OPENING STATEMENT that is considered one of the most eloquent in the annals of JURISPRUDENCE. “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish,” Jackson said, “have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.” Hermann Göering was the most powerful surviving member of the German government to be tried at Nuremberg. Göering had been elected president of the Reichstag (the German parliament) in 1932. After Hitler was named chancellor of Germany in 1933, Göering was appointed minister of interior for Prussia where he created the Gestapo and established the first concentration camps. In 1935 Göering became chief of the Luftwaffe (the German air force), and two years later he was made commissioner of the Four Year Plan, an economic program designed to make Germany self-sufficient in preparation for the ensuing Nazi blitzkrieg. After Germany’s invasion of Finland in 1939, Göering was elevated to Reich marshall, the highest military rank in Germany and designated as Hitler’s successor in the event of Hitler’s death. The IMT convicted the Reich marshall on all four counts and sentenced him to death. The prosecution demonstrated that Göering had helped plan and direct the invasions of Poland and Austria. Other evidence indicated that Göering had ordered the Luftwaffe to destroy a business district in Rotterdam, Netherlands, even though the city had already surrendered. Göering was also implicated in the extermina- tion of Polish intelligentsia, nobility, and clergy, the execution of British prisoners of war, the deportation of foreign laborers to Germany, the theft o f a rt from French museums, and the sup- pression of domestic political o pposition. Addi- tionally, Göering admitted on CROSS-EXAMINATION that he was responsible for promulgating laws that had facilitated the persecution of Jews throughout Europe. Rudolph Hess was another influential Nazi official prosecuted at Nuremberg. Hess was a longtime friend of Hitler. In 1923 the two joined forces in an unsuccessful attempt to incite a Nazi revolution in a Munich tavern. Although Hitler was arrested and convicted of TREASON for his role in the so-called beer hall putsch, German interest in the Nazi movement grew after the publication of Mein Kampf, a manifesto Hitler dictated to Hess while serving his prison term. Mein Kampf promoted Aryan supremacy, German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarian government, which Hess later cultivated in his capacity as deputy führer to the Third Reich. During the Nuremberg trial, the prosecu- tion offered evidence that Hess had signed orders authorizing the persecution of European Jews and the ransac king of churches. Docu- mentssignedbyHessandmeetingshe attended reflected his support for Hitler’splan to invade Czechoslovakia, Polan d, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Hess originally asserted a defense of amnesia to these charges, claiming that he had forgotten the entire period of his life in which he had acted as deputy führer. However, Hess with- drew this defense upon realizing that he would not stand trial with the other defendants if he were diagnosed as incompetent. Hess was convicted of counts I and II and sentenced to life imprisonment. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NUREMBERG TRIALS 317 . as international law. Article VI of the United States Constitution states, “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Unite d GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NUCLEAR. a person’s enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NUISANCE 311 rightful possession of land, have the right to. the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Office of Investigations, and the Office of Enforcement. NRC fulfills its responsibilities through a system of licensing and regulation. The Office