海珊的審判引起舉世注目，因爲這是繼紐倫堡之後國際社會上第一位國家元首坐上被告席。每一次針對違犯國際刑事犯罪的個人進行審判，都是往正義的實現邁進一步，但前提是其程序的進行必須遵守公正審判的規則。審判海珊的工作是由美軍占領下的「伊拉克高等刑事法庭」負責，故從一開始，海珊審判程序進行的就已令世人質疑，這是否會是一場公平的審判程序，而從整個過程來看，受到嚴格限制的辯護權，有偏見之嫌的主審法官，使得程序的進行與判決的結果都未盡令人滿意，甚至從判決內所採納的一切文件卷宗來看，也似乎有未審先決的嫌疑。其他在審判程序的過程中所發生的許多值得詬病的瑕疵，都讓海珊審判結果的合法性與正當性被打上問號。本文目的，即在根據國際刑法的理論角度對此一整體審判程序做出一較爲深入的探討與批判。

The trial of Saddam Hussein has caught the world wide attention, for it is the first time to put a national leader on the defendant seat ever since the Nuremburg trials. Every time to put an individial that charged with internaitonal crimial offences is a step further to justice, premised that the procedural justice is assured. Nevertheless, the trail of Saddam Hussein was held by the "Iraqi High Tribunal" which was controlled by the American Army, the procedural justice was clouded even before the trial begun. And probing into the proceeding of the trial, both the strictly limited right of defense and a prejudiced chief judge have made the proceedings and the verdict flawed. Even the dossiers adopted by the verdict would cast doubt on a pre-deciding trial. Along with many other legal defects during the trial, all together have put a question mark on the ligitimacy and soundness of the verdict. This article is aimed at analyzing the proceedings of the trial from the interantoinal criminal law's angle.