Citation

Rhea HM. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 2009; 19(3): 308-321.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Georgia State University, College of Health and Human Sciences, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1057567709336664

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

After the First Gulf War in 1991, President George H. W. Bush called for creating an ad hoc criminal tribunal similar to the Nuremberg Trial that prosecuted the Nazi Major War Criminals at the conclusion of World War II, to prosecute Saddam Hussein and other Ba’ath Party leaders for crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Excluding the United Kingdom, the idea of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute Saddam did not gain strong support in the international community and eventually the United States’ initiative diminished. After years of human rights atrocities and the belief of possession of weapons of mass destruction, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and other supporting states, invaded Iraq in March 2003. As a result, the moral authority of the invading states, particularly the United States, has become jeopardized throughout the international community. This article reviews the historical events of the First Gulf War, the consideration of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute Saddam Hussein by the United States from 1991 to 2002, and how the moral reputation of the United States in the international society may be different today if an international criminal tribunal for Iraq had been created after the First Gulf War.