Between Western traditionand Soviet doctrine: Some remarks on internationallaw’s application by the Hungarian People’s Courts

This contribution offers some general remarks on the application of international law by the Hungarian People’s Courts in their judgments handed down in cases of some most notable major Hungarian WWII criminals (hun. háborús főbünösök). it is submitted that the role of international law in jurisprudence analyzed here was somewhat limited. Nonetheless, although the line of reasoning and conclusions Hungarian People’s Judges drew from international rules were sometimes controversial, the overall assessment of their work in the area of our interest here is everything but straightforward. Concerning the surprisingly substantial mistakes or presumed abuses – their actual causes were twofold. On the one hand, some of them resulted from certain objective factors over which these organs had little influence or could not prevent them. On the other hand, the political nature of these processes, determined by the structure of Decree 81/1945 and its later interpretation, was often subordinated to pragmatic and short-term goals – not necessarily the simple justice administration. This contribution also substantiates the hypothesis that the limited role that international law could play in the proceedings and the lack of international organs reviewing its day-to-day application had some more far-reaching consequences. Notably, the jurisprudence examined suggests – albeit mutatis mutandis – some similarities to the judgments given in the infamous Leipzig trials of 1921, although – due to different realities prevailing in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and in Hungary in the mid-40ties – these features could have been revealed to a limited extent. Finally, it is posited that even though none of the cases analyzed in this contribution fully mirrored the Soviet “show trials,” some of them were undoubtedly the harbinger of the upcoming Stalinist era in the Hungarian judiciary. (