This thesis examines post-conflict justice in Iraq following the U.S. invasion, specifically, the legitimacy of the Iraq High Criminal Court and its first deliberation, the Al-Dujail trial of Saddam Hussein. It asks How can the United States infuse transitional justice through Western forms of judicial procedures into the democratic transition of non- Western nations under U.S. military occupation The analysis begins with International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg as a model of transformative post-conflict justice. Then it turns to the cloudier legacy of the Tokyo Trials, where the internal contradictions of this approach gathered force in the non-Western context and laid bare the shortcomings of the Nuremberg model. Finally, it examines the Iraqi tribunal, which demonstrated many of the shortcomings of earlier tribunals, to the detriment of the United States and the new Iraqi government. This thesis does not concern itself with the guilt or innocence of the former Iraqi dictator. The purpose is to better understand how the Coalition Provisional Authority established legal jurisdiction and to review the issues surrounding Saddams trial. Finally, it suggests judicial processes that could be employed in non-Western cultures to support the transition from an insurgent post-conflict environment to peace.

Subjects: Transitional Justice; Justice; Tribunal; Saddam; Hussein; Al-Dujail; Nuremberg; IMT; Tokyo; Transformative Justice; Iraqi Special Tribunal; High Criminal Court; post-conflict; reconciliation; victors justice; CPA; IST; IHCC; IMT-FE; Military Tribunal; Civil Military Relations; Civ-Mil Relations; Truth Commission; Trial; Iraq; Iraqi.