Hi! Thanks for the question.
The UN seems to be the appropriate international law body that should
put Saddam into trial.
In our first link, it wasn't only during the Bush administration that
such a proposal has been made but even during the time of former
President Bill Clinton.
"International law specialists and human rights activists say the US
could deliver a blow far more damaging to the Iraqi leader than any
bomb, short of a direct hit on Saddam's Baghdad residence du jour."
"These experts advocate convening a special international tribunal to
prosecute the Iraqi leader for alleged war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and genocide."
In the same article, pessimists have this to say:
"Critics of the tribunal approach say even if Saddam were convicted in
absentia there would be almost no chance of arresting him. If US bombs
can't find him, how would international bounty hunters, they ask?"
"They also say in some cases involving weapons of mass destruction
relying on the law is not an acceptable alternative to swift, decisive
military action. To get bogged down in courtroom battles might further
endanger global security, these analysts say."
"An Unused American Tactic: Trying Saddam for War Crimes"
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1998/02/20/intl/intl.4.html
In terms of the Bush administration, our next article shows that
Saddam could be prosecuted for past crimes.
"The problem - and it reflects the rudimentary state of international
criminal law - is that the behaviour that makes Saddam most dangerous
is not an offence. There is no rule, for example, against possession
of nuclear weapons."
"That leaves one last option for Bush and Blair to explore this
weekend - a prosecution of Saddam under the 1948 Genocide Convention
for his attacks on the Kurds, which notoriously culminated in gassing
at least 5,000 of them to death at Halabja in 1988. A crime against
humanity on this scale can never be forgiven, notwithstanding the
Gadarene rush of Western governments afterwards to sell arms to Iraq.
There could be no objection to a retrospective prosecution, since
genocide was an international law crime at the time."
"Use the law, not war, to sort out Saddam"
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4496680,00.html
An international war crimes expert, Leila Sadat Wexler, however is not
too upbeat that an action on past abuseswill be effective since it
connotes of political maneuverings and will not necesarily nail
Saddam. She even questions the authority of the UN in such a matter.
"The United Nations Security Council has established tribunals to try
individuals accused of violations of international law in the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but Wexler argued that these tribunals were
more appropriate because they addressed immediate crimes and were
widely supported by the international community. The potential
defendants also were put on notice they might be tried, she said."
"The current call for the indictment of Hussein seems to be a belated
attempt to dredge up old abuses for an overtly political purpose,
Wexler said. 'There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein may be guilty of
serious violations of international law, but there is no court to try
him,' she added."
"News Analysis: Calls to indict Saddam Hussein purely political,
international war crimes tribunal expert says"
http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1998/03-12-98/9701.html
Search terms used:
Saddam international violations
Saddam trial "international law"
I hope these links would help you in your research. Before rating this
answer, please ask for a clarification if you have a question or if
you would need further information.
Thanks for visiting us.
Regards,
Easterangel-ga
Google Answers Researcher |
