AIDP Blog

I do not believe that the pursuit of justice through prosecution at the ICC is the only way that peace can be achieved in Uganda. Prosecution at the ICC is not the only way in which justice can be achieved, nor is it the appropriate way to achieve justice in this case.

I believe that in Uganda, a truth and reconciliation commission following a similar model as the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be an effective method of achieving both peace and justice in Uganda. Because the Ugandan conflict was predominantly internal in nature, the impetus for peace and justice should come from within Uganda. Both the government and the LRA targeted citizens of Uganda, so the pursuit of justice must be sought on both sides of the conflict. A truth and reconciliation commission would allow for the condemnation of the atrocities that were committed by both sides. Finally, the high prevalence of conscripted child soldiers creates a situation with very unique needs. The children must be disarmed, rehabilitated, and reintegrated into society. There will be no peace if all of the children who were forced to serve as soldiers are prosecuted for their actions. As in the Special Court for Sierra Leone, whatever model is chosen for Uganda must prosecute only those that are the most responsible for the atrocities, and have a separate program to rehabilitate and reintegrate child soldiers.

As Mr. Drumbl noted, the people of Northern Uganda support justice, but through “traditional community methods of dispute resolution and integration—particularly for child soldiers…and have implored the ICC not to continue with the indictments.” It seems apparent that the people of Northern Uganda wish to initiate the peace process on their own, without the use of westernized trials and correctional models. The people of Uganda obviously wish to begin building a more peaceful society. If a peaceful future can exist for Uganda, it must come from within, not through prosecution at the ICC.

Certainly, if local ideas of justice and reconciliation are more compatible with peace than the ICC’s approach, that’s an important point in their favor. But what about the deterrent effect? It’s fairly common for accused war criminals to claim that international human rights laws aren’t compatible with local cultural norms. This can be an excuse; relying on the fact that the predominately European courts often know little about the cultures they’re dealing with to present a distorted picture of cultural values and traditions. If perpetrators of atrocities in Uganda are allowed escape international indictment and trial due to their cultural values, this will set a precedent that every subsequent war criminal and human rights violator will try to exploit.

Certainly, child soldiers shouldn’t be subjected to international criminal prosecutions. Children, by nature, are incapable of the sort of criminal responsibility that war crimes tribunals and the ICC were set up to prosecute. Children who participate in atrocities should be helped, first and foremost, and any attempt to hold them accountable for their acts should be subordinate to efforts to rehabilitate them and help them reintegrate into society. The national government is in a better position to handle this than international prosecutors. But this is consistent with current international humanitarian law, and doesn’t require setting up different rules for different countries or cultures. All international prosecutions on human rights are targeted to those most responsible, a category that simply doesn’t include children. So ICC indictments wouldn’t include child soldiers, and aren’t inconsistent with efforts to rehabilitate them.

This essay raises several interesting questions as to whether there exists some moral or legal duty to prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity. I struggle with this issue, as on one side it seems there should be some kind of moral obligation on the part of major countries to respond to the brutal crimes carried out by the LPA and other similar groups. However, if the ultimate end to be obtained is the restoration of peace and stability in a war-torn region, prosecution of war criminals may not be the most effective means to that end.

I agree with the author’s hesitancy regarding the use of liberal legalism, especially Westernized trials, as a method of seeking justice in countries such as Uganda. I also find his comment addressing the opinions of the Acholi population particularly interesting. Although I am not sure if such empirical research already exists, I think some kind of study questioning whether the justice meted out by the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals actually brought some form of peace to the people of those countries would be extremely revealing. It is not inconceivable that this might aid in answering the author’s question: “Is peace impossible without justice?”

I believe that as long as the leaders of the LRA and Uganda are held accountable in some fashion, it would be acceptable for the ICC to drop the charges against the LRA and Uganda. It has been noted from the State Department surveys taken in Germany during and after the Nuremberg Tribunals that the German population highly resented the judgments at the Nuremberg Tribunals. It makes sense for tribunals to be used by an overwhelmingly dominant force trying to impose punishments on their opponents in a just and fair manner. But in a delicate situation between a successful rebel group and a weak government, the damage in the short term caused by an international tribunal may not compensate the long-term benefits of the tribunal.

Forgoing ICC tribunals does not mean that justice will be sacrificed in the name of peace. Mr. Drumbl notes that justice for the Ugandan population includes dispute resolution and integration for those who committed the crimes. South Africa found their own way of welding justice to peace through their Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where those who committed crimes admitted to their crimes publicly in order to be absolved of their crimes. The traditional model and the South African model are both appropriate to Uganda due to the internal nature of the conflict and the need of reconciliation to coexist.

For the two factions to reach a peace accord and cease their hostilities, an international tribunal would serve to only heighten the tensions and prolong the conflict. Due to the alternatives to the ICC for justice and for there to be a peaceful resolution, the ICC should dismiss the charges raised by the Ugandan government.