Saddam Hussein’s case remains a milestone in today’s development of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), alongside International Criminal Law. His political and military activities, from the Iraq-Iran war, persecuting the Kurds through the Anfal Campaign, up to annexing Kuwait, underlined the deficiency of international instruments designed to impede aggression by states and protecting civilians’ lives. Although International Humanitarian Law strongly condemned those crimes, like Genocide, Acts of Aggression, and Chemical Warfare, the selectiveness of the application proved the superiority of political power over cosmopolitan justice. The prosecution of Saddam in front of the Iraqi High Tribunal was rich in symbolic weight; it was supposed to underline how the judicial process was torn between the demand for legal justice and the will of political vindictiveness, acting more as an example of victor’s justice rather than impartial international justice. This research opines that the trial of Saddam demonstrates structural deficiency in the international justice system in the sense that while international law codifies well, it remains sensitive in equal application. Through a comparison of the ICTY under Milosevic, the SCSL under Charles Taylor and the foundational Nuremberg trials, this paper reveals the enduring demand for comprehensive reform in global criminal justice system. The recommended reforms advocate curbing the veto powers of Security Council in atrocity offences, advancing the jurisdiction of ICC to a universal extent, instituting a neutral implementation structure, recognizing new global offences like Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Ecocide, and developing hybrid tribunals to ensure both state sovereignty and international justice. Finally, this research finds that the case of Saddam Hussein exposes both the potential and restraint of international justice since the authority of law is bound by political will. The advancement of IHL and ICL must ensure that no future dictator is subjected to a verdict governed by political dominance rather than authority of justice.