In the epilogue to Eichmann in Jerusalem (pp. 253-279), Arendt focuses on the unique legal questions raised by the trial, arguing that “genocide . . . is an attack upon human diversity as such, that is, upon a characteristic of the ‘human status’ without which the very words ‘mankind’ or ‘humanity’ would be devoid of meaning” (268-9). For this reason, she insists Eichmann should have been tried before an international court: “the very monstrousness of the events is minimized before a tribunal that represents one nation only” (270). Explain and assess Arendt’s argument. Focusing on the epilogue, discuss the legal strategies available to traditional nation states, and then explain why Arendt insists only international courts are appropriate to prosecuting genocide. You may wish to consider the extent to which her appeal for international law fits with other claims of hers about the power of nationalist sentiment to check Nazi crimes in occupied territories. Next, consider 2-3 objections to her view, and finally, evaluate the debate in light of the objections you raised.
