Law, Power, and “Rumors of War”: Robert Jackson Confronts Law and Security After Nuremberg

Justice Robert Jackson confronted fundamental tensions between law and security in the Cold War era after leading prosecution efforts at Nuremberg. Jackson hoped the war crimes tribunal would establish legal controls over warfare and aggressive conflict, creating international legal frameworks to prevent future wars. However, as Cold War tensions escalated after 1946, Jackson realized traditional wartime-peacetime distinctions were collapsing into permanent international tensions. Nuclear weapons created new anxieties about global security that could not be resolved through law alone. Jackson grappled with reconciling his vision of law's supremacy over lawlessness and warfare with the geopolitical realities of great-power conflict. The article traces how Jackson's thinking evolved from Nuremberg's promise of legal controls to recognition that Cold War conditions required different approaches to national security and presidential power. Dudziak examines how Jackson's post-war writings and speeches reveal his struggle to maintain faith in law while acknowledging security imperatives. The article positions Jackson at the intersection of law's aspirations and security's demands, showing how his Nuremberg experience shaped his later constitutional jurisprudence.

Topics: International Law · Constitutional Law · Legal History

Keywords: Nuremberg · Robert Jackson · Cold War · war crimes · international law · nuclear weapons · presidential power