In this article in the Symposium on Milosevic \u26 Hussein on Trial, the author discusses procedural challenges to proving genocide in the trial of Saddam Hussein to argue that the legitimacy of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) \u26 the proof of genocide rest on a sense of fairness, transparency, \u26 completion of trials on a reasonable schedule. The Geneva Convention definition of genocide is discussed in terms of the impact of general verses specific intent in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). A historical analysis of the colonial creation of Iraq relates Saddam\u27s style of government control to his desire to maintain power, \u26 the geopolitics of oil in the country. Saddam\u27s genocides of the Kurds \u26 the Marsh Arabs are contextualized in the historical events of the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War, the chemical warfare on the Kurdish peoples, the draining of the marshes, \u26 persecution of the Marsh Arabs. Creation of the IST under the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is comparatively analyzed with alternative court models, \u26 the probability of success or failure of the two cases of genocide are discussed. The author predicts many challenges for the prosecutorial success of genocide in the case of Saddam Hussein, \u26 advocates procedural balance to secure the legitimacy of the IST. J. Harwel
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.