Most people are familiar with Nuremberg, not for having seen or read about the trials themselves, but from the very famous and well received motion picture, "Judgment at Nuremberg," which itself was adapted from the television drama of the same name. The basic premise of Nuremberg is that the Germans, specifically, prominent German military personnel as well as prominent German political figures from the losing side of World War II, were tried at Nuremberg, by the Allies after the war had ended. Not too surprisingly, when the victorious side is prosecuting the defeated side, such a trial, no matter how fair it actually is or how fair it is perceived, is almost by definition, not going to be fair, and further to the point, resolves little or nothing, as the deeds each of these specific men were accused of and/or convicted of, to a large extent, were essentially convictions of "ex post facto" laws, well meaning or not, legitimate or not, with the intended result of death or imprisonment for those that a cynic might simply state, were being convicted for being on the losing side of a war in which both sides committed atrocities, but only one side were tried and convicted for it.
At best, the Nuremberg trials, or the Nuremberg show trials, was a step forward in progress, signifying that manmade laws within a sovereign nation or during times of war or civil strife, are not necessarily legitimate, no matter how they are written, constructed or exercised, if they violate fundamental human rights of the individuals or groups of people subjected to them. This would indicate than that those that conduct violations of fundamental human rights, cannot then hide behind their country's sovereignty, their country's laws, their uniforms, their obedience to orders or directives, or expedient circumstances to exculpate themselves, though, they might try. This, in short, would be a very important and fundamental step in seeing that basic fundamental human rights could not be violated, and should they be, would be subject to appropriate prosecution.
Since, the Nuremberg trials, all sorts of international tribunals have been passed and agreed to, some in which virtually every nation participates, some in which a majority of nations agree to, and so on and so forth, however, any document so created is only as good as its enactment in the real world, and when one exists in a world in which there is one more equal than others, that is one superpower, and there are none to oppose such, no treaty, no international tribunal, no international justice, and no international law, will be effective, without that country participating wholly and without special considerations or set asides for that superpower.
So that, despite organizations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), if the United States does not ratify to it, which it has not and thereby cannot be held accountable to its conditions and rules, then this document is unjust in its application and thereby wholly ineffective on an international scale. A world in which one country, or a group of countries, is never held accountable for war crimes, because they are above the law, means that trials such as Nuremberg, are virtually empty of moral value or moral suasion, for essentially what Nuremberg proves above all else, is that that those in power, that those that hold the strings, are held accountable to nobody and no one on this good earth, for the strong preach the word, but run riot in what they do.