Malaysia Start‑class Low‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Initial hearings"

"Initial hearings are scheduled to be heard on November 19–22, 2011." --> Who are they inviting to those so-called "hearings"? This whole article and organization seem to be without credibility. John Hyams (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I nominated this page for deletion because it seems to me that this organisation is not notable according to WP:ORG, nor it is legitimate according to international legal standards. John Hyams (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they are symbolic, and are charging George Bush and Tony Blair in absentia ([1], [2] [3]).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of tribunal

This is a peculiar situation. There is no government behind this court? There was no governmental body behind the Nuremburg Trials either. The tribunals were ad hoc committees with representatives of several sovereign nations (victors in war--no representatives from the losers), set up just to prosecute officials of the losing side, for what were not crimes under German law. The Nuremburg tribunals made up procedures as they went along, made up new crimes never before prosecuted. Yet most people seem to accept the legitimacy of those decisions. Here we have a tribunal composed of respected judges and lawyers, yet not affiliated with a government (?). It has all the outward trappings of a court: hearing witnesses, considering fact, applying international law, and making decisions of guilt or innocence. But not having the power to impose a sentence? It seems more like a court of public opinion, a court to render a purely historical verdict. Yet-- Nuremburg was that, too. Justice Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, stated that one purpose and perhaps the main purpose since no punishment could fit the enormity of Nazi crimes, was to lay the facts before the court of history. To compile a detailed, cross-examined, absolutely reliable record of what happened so it could never be denied (some people have attempted to deny the Holocaust anyway, but that's a different matter). Being unsure what to make of this tribunal, I will simply note it, and wait to see how various international organizations treat it. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here :

Universal jurisdiction or universality principle allows states or International organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under Universal Jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.

Simply put: The Nazi's are never entitled to a Nazi trial. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Legitimacy seems to be written for the purpose of undermining the commissions status. It may or may not be correct that it is a private organization, with no legal standing. But it may also be that it is a state-sponsored commission, with legal powers. Rather than speculating, and assuming it has not legitimacy, isn't it more helpful for a Malaysian editor to find this information?101.98.74.13 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]