Case Studies on International Military Tribunals: Legal and Ethical Reflections on Goring, Milosevic, and Hussein

Mihir Bhagwat

Abstract: This study aims to critically analyze and compare high-profile international military tribunal cases to assess the effectiveness, fairness, and legacy of judicial processes used to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes. This article presents a comparative study of three landmark cases prosecuted under international criminal law: Hermann Goring (Nazi Germany), Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia), and Saddam Hussein (Iraq). It explores the legal, ethical, and procedural dynamics of each tribunal-IMT, ICTY, and IST-while examining the broader implications for international justice, state sovereignty, and post-conflict reconciliation. Through critical analysis of the verdicts, trial conduct, and alternative solutions, this study highlights the evolving role of international criminal tribunals in enforcing accountability and shaping legal precedent. By juxtaposing three landmark tribunals, this study offers nuanced insights into the evolution of international criminal jurisprudence and its role in addressing state-sponsored atrocities. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness and judicial legitimacy in transitional justice frameworks.

Keywords: War Crimes, international criminal law, Nuremberg trials, transitional justice, human rights violations

How to Cite?: Mihir Bhagwat, "Case Studies on International Military Tribunals: Legal and Ethical Reflections on Goring, Milosevic, and Hussein", Volume 14 Issue 7, July 2025, International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Pages: 1565-1567, https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25723153258, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21275/SR25723153258