Resolution criteria

This market resolves to YES if, between January 1, 2030, and December 31, 2039 (11:59 PM UTC), an official state-sanctioned national or international judicial tribunal formally commences to prosecute government officials, scientists, or pharmaceutical executives for crimes against humanity or medical ethics violations stemming from pandemic response measures, and the proceeding is officially titled or widely designated by major international news outlets as a "Nuremberg 2.0" trial.

This market resolves to NO if no such official tribunal or trial commences prior to January 1, 2040.

Notes and Edge Cases:

• Non-qualifying proceedings: Unofficial citizen grand juries, activist-led public hearings, mock trials, online assemblies, standard civil litigation, routine parliamentary inquiries, or standard domestic criminal cases do not qualify unless they constitute a legally binding, official state or international tribunal specifically established for pandemic-related crimes against humanity.

• Precondition: If no major global pandemic or official tribunal occurs during the 2030s, the market resolves NO (not N/A).

• The market creator may edit these criteria before resolution to specify particular legal bodies or international news sources of record if needed.

Background

The phrase "Nuremberg 2.0" emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic among critics of public health mandates, lockdown policies, and vaccine rollouts. Proponents of the concept invoke the 1947 Nuremberg Code—established following the post-World War II trials of Nazi doctors—to argue that pandemic public health measures violated medical consent principles, calling for international trials of politicians, scientists, and health officials. Legal scholars and fact-checking organizations note that the Nuremberg Code specifically governs non-consensual human scientific experimentation rather than authorized public health interventions, and no official international judicial body has proposed or established such a tribunal.