Abstract

ABSTRACT

This thesis critically examines the legal paradoxes embedded within transitional justice (TJ) discourse, using the Nürnberg and Saddam Hussein trials as case studies to interrogate the complex relationship between justice and the rule of law in TJ discourse. It highlights the inherent tension between forward-looking societal reforms and the pursuit of backward-looking justice, challenging the foundational assumptions of TJ as a universal tool for justice and peace. It also questions the validity and credibility of "transition" as a phase between the past and the future. It contends that TJ, driven by Western liberal epistemic foundations, functions as an exclusionary project, imposing a pseudo-transition rather than an authentic justice process. The thesis critiques the flawed premise that TJ mechanisms inherently promote justice, revealing instead how these mechanisms contradict the rule of law due to political motives and international interventions. As a result, the discourse on TJ fosters an illusory state of transition, wherein only the bare minimum of justice is achieved, undermining its ability to meet its essential requirements and secure genuine societal healing. This ultimately transformed the TJ process into a systemic tool for the institutionalized injustice and perpetuation of violence.

KEY WORDS: Transitional Justice, Legal Paradoxes, Rule of Law, Pseudo-Transition, Nürnberg and Saddam Hussein trials, Institutionalized Injustice.

School

School of Global Affairs and Public Policy

Department

Law Department

Degree Name

LLM in International and Comparative Law

Graduation Date

Winter 1-26-2026

Submission Date

9-21-2025

First Advisor

Jason Beckett

Committee Member 1

Thomas Skouteris

Committee Member 2

Hani Sayed

Extent

91p.

Document Type

Master's Thesis

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

Approval has been obtained for this item

Disclosure of AI Use

No use of AI

Download

Share

COinS