Justice in Conflict: The Suitability of International Justice in Conflict Resolution-The International Criminal Court in Northern Uganda

Justice in conflict: the suitability of international justice in conflict resolution SUMMARY The rise of an international consensus against impunity for crimes against humanity culminating in the creation of the International Criminal Court has been hailed as a great success for international justice and human rights. This apparent triumph of Kantian neo-liberal idealism that promotes respect for individual rights, the erosion of state sovereignty in favour of universal jurisdiction belies the hegemony of the realist global order and the on-going tussle between the two ideologies for the domination of global politics and conduct of International affairs. The continued prevalence of deadly conflicts across the world with resultant human rights atrocities and crimes against humanity bring to sharp contrast the competing demands of international justice and the interests of conflict resolution and peace building. While contemporary transitional justice deals with questions of impunity in post conflict situations, this thesis examines the suitability of international justice for conflict resolution. This critique is situated in the historical development and rise to prominence of international humanitarian law and human rights. It critiques the consequences of pursuing justice in on going conflicts and scrutinizes the competing interests of the punitive, retributive approach to contemporary international justice leading to prosecution, against a conflict resolution approach that favours political considerations for peace and security that may require engagement with perpetrators of war crimes in order to secure peace. The balance between peace and justice is the more difficult to strike in the context of an on going conflict such as Northern Uganda’s where the pursuit of justice by the ICC risks exacerbating the conflict and diminishing the prospects for peace. The thesis critiques the ICC’s strict and minimalist interpretation of its mandate in the Rome Statute and its subsequent failure to take into account existing peace processes and a national amnesty. It juxtaposes this against local and traditional conceptions of and preferences for alternative forms of justice, negative (mis)perceptions of the ICC and the interest of community leaders, civil society and majority of the population for a peaceful settlement of the conflict as opposed to seeking a military solution and eventual prosecution. It concludes with an argument for a deconstruction and redefinition of international justice to adopt a much broader conception of justice beyond the narrow retributive approach. For International justice to be relevant to conflict resolution, it has to redefine its position with regard to alternative forms of justice such as truth commissions, traditional practices of truth telling and forgiveness and other local conceptions of justice. In this regard, the ICC also needs to re- evaluate its pursuit for justice and the issuance of arrest warrants for the LRA leadership in the light of new developments towards a negotiated settlement to the conflict. 4