Why is d’Entreves saying that the Nuremberg trial “overstepped” the boundaries of positive law? How, according to d’Entreves, did that trial do so? Who might be the “very champions” of positive law that d’Entreves is addressing here? Is d’Entreves defending or attacking the tradition of natural law? What does he imply about law and society, natural versus positive law, if he is defending the principle nullum crimen sine poena (no crime without punishment)?
In his book Natural Law, the noted European legal philosopher A.P. d’Entreves asserted the following concerning the Nuremberg trial of Nazi leaders after World…