Meaning: The quote refers to the idea of having an experienced international jurist who is not affiliated with the allied invaders serve on a tribunal, specifically in the context of the trial of Saddam Hussein. This quote touches on complex issues related to justice, sovereignty, and the role of international law in addressing crimes committed by political leaders.

In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom, Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was captured and eventually put on trial for crimes against humanity, including the brutal suppression of political dissent and the killing of thousands of Kurdish civilians in the 1980s.

The quote reflects the concern that the tribunal set up to try Saddam Hussein should include impartial and experienced international jurists who are not seen as connected to the invading forces. This reflects the broader principle of ensuring fairness, impartiality, and legitimacy in the pursuit of justice for crimes committed in the context of armed conflict and political upheaval.

The notion of having an international jurist with no connections to the allied invaders is rooted in the principles of fairness and neutrality. The presence of such a jurist on the tribunal is seen as a way to mitigate concerns about bias and partiality that may arise due to the involvement of the invading forces in the trial process. This is particularly important in high-profile cases involving former political leaders where the stakes are high, and the potential for political influence and manipulation is significant.

The quote also speaks to the importance of international cooperation and the involvement of a diverse range of legal experts in addressing crimes of such magnitude. It underscores the idea that justice should be pursued through an international lens, with input from legal professionals from various backgrounds and legal systems. This reflects the growing recognition of the need for international collaboration in addressing crimes against humanity and the importance of establishing legal mechanisms that transcend national boundaries.

Furthermore, the quote raises questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of international tribunals in addressing the crimes of political leaders. It highlights the tensions and complexities involved in seeking justice for crimes committed in the context of armed conflict, especially when the legal processes are intertwined with geopolitical interests and power dynamics.

In conclusion, the quote captures the complexities and challenges involved in seeking justice for crimes committed by political leaders in the context of armed conflict. It underscores the importance of impartiality, international cooperation, and the involvement of experienced legal professionals in the pursuit of justice. The issues raised in the quote continue to be relevant in contemporary discussions about the role of international law and tribunals in addressing crimes against humanity and the need for fairness and impartiality in the pursuit of justice on the global stage.