Â鶹app

I applied for a Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) during the fall semester of my junior year to get a jump-start on research I could expand for my senior-year honors thesis. Inspired by my history seminar on the Holocaust in Europe, I decided to research the legal and cultural impacts of the Eichmann Trial on international law. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi official and an architect of the Holocaust. His trial, held in Israel in 1961, was a landmark legal decision that increased global awareness of the Holocaust and expanded principles of international law.

My SURF project involved analyzing the Eichmann Trial transcripts and related secondary sources from legal journals and Holocaust scholars. I compared how the trial’s legal and cultural goals were translated into future legal decisions. Using three cases from the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, I examined how effectively the Eichmann precedents were applied. 

The first case I examined was a United Kingdom House of Lords case, R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [1999]). This case examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet could be extradited to Spain and prosecuted for crimes against humanity despite claiming immunity as head of state. I chose this case because it demonstrates how the legal principles reinforced by the Eichmann Trial, particularly universal jurisdiction and individual criminal responsibility, were later applied to political leaders accused of international crimes. The next case I examined was Demjanjuk v U.S. 6^th Circuit (1985). This case involved the extradition of a Treblinka Nazi prison guard to Israel to stand trial. I selected this case because it builds upon the legal foundations established in the Eichmann Trial, particularly universal jurisdiction and accountability for international crimes, while also illustrating the trial's lasting cultural impact through Holocaust memory and survivor testimony. The last case I analyzed was Nulyarimma v Thompson (1999). A group of Aboriginal Australians accused the Australian government, including Prime Minister John Howard, of cultural genocide against the Aboriginal peoples for enacting policies affecting land rights. I chose this case because it highlights both the influence and the limitations of the legal principles associated with the Eichmann Trial, showing how concepts such as genocide and individual criminal responsibility were received in another national legal system. 

I worked on this project using a hybrid work schedule. Much of my work was done at my house off the UNH campus or at the Diamond Library. However, once a week I met  with my mentor on campus to discuss my progress. My SURF project will culminate in a 30-page research paper that examines which parts of the Eichmann Trial were successfully translated to future court cases regarding genocide, and which parts were less successful. This will serve as the skeleton of my honors thesis in fall semester.

For the writing process, I spent six weeks reading and analyzing trial transcripts and law journal articles. I also read books by political philosopher Hannah Arendt and historian Christopher Browning. In week seven of my summer research, I refined and reorganized my notes into an outline with a thesis statement. I began drafting my research paper in week eight, which is where I am now. Here is a glimpse into a day in my life as a full-time summer researcher.

7:30 a.m.

After waking up and eating a light breakfast, I head to the gym. This helps me get my body moving and mentally prepare for the day. Once my workout is done, I shower and get dressed in a comfortable outfit. 

9:00 a.m.

My commute to campus takes a little under an hour. On the way to Durham, I listen to a podcast or an audiobook unrelated to my research, knowing I will spend a lot of time on that subject later. 

10:00 a.m.

Once I arrive on campus, I meet with my mentor, Professor Marion Dorsey, at Horton Hall. We discuss the new material I examined the previous week and her annotations on the current draft of my paper. We cover the next steps for the project and secondary sources that could help expand my paper.  

11:00 a.m.

At the Diamond Library, I set up my laptop and note-taking materials. I begin revising the current draft of my paper according to my mentor’s annotations. This mainly involves expanding on certain themes, fixing citations, or clarifying sentences.

1:00 p.m.

To provide more context for my paper, I research the cultural reaction to one of my comparative cases, an Australian Federal Court decision regarding the cultural genocide of the Aboriginal Peoples. I like to have a working lunch, so I eat while reading and taking notes on an article from Australia’s Aboriginal legal journal: The Indigenous Law Bulletin.

2:30 p.m. 

Using my notes from prior weeks of research, I continue working on my paper. Today, I focus on the principle of universal jurisdiction in international law, the legal concept that allows national courts to prosecute individuals who commit crimes against humanity regardless of where the actions were committed or the victims’ nationalities. I note how it was successfully applied in the Eichmann Trial and then how effectively it was used in the three other cases.

6:00 p.m.

I wrap up my work and leave Diamond Library before it closes. I make my short commute back home and decompress with music. Depending on the day, I work a short closing shift at a local restaurant before calling it a night.