The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) investigation into abuses by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Uganda has raised serious concerns, particularly in respect to children and other vulnerable groups. What are the implications of international intervention for national, regional and local reconciliation and what will be the long-term effect on the peace process? This report by the Crisis States Programme at the London School of Economics examines the ICC and finds that its activities have not lead to the worsening of the situation that many commentators predicted.
Concerns about the ICC’s investigation include bias, the potential to exacerbate violence, endanger vulnerable groups (such as children and other witnesses of atrocities) and deteriorate the peace-process by undermining amnesty and ceasefire. Additional concerns include the Court’s undercutting of local justice procedures. Given that the investigation of abuses by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) presents the first big case for the ICC, an assessment of the risks involved in its intervention is crucial for its future success.
The examination of all four issues of concern shows that while there appropriate concerns, some of the arguments are misplaced. Most importantly, the activities of the ICC have not lead to the worsening of situations that many commentators predicted.
- The accusation of court bias resulting from its initial investigation of only LRA atrocities is overstated. The Court eventually decided to investigate all crimes, whoever the perpetrators. In addition, it is in the nature of prosecution to build a case and in that process, be biased.
- The exacerbation of violence and endangering of vulnerable groups is unfounded, given that the conflict in northern Uganda is still ongoing. In fact, the results of ICC’s involvement have been positive, particularly given the growth of international scrutiny.
- The ICC’s intervention was found to be both a threat to the Amnesty Act and a limitation on peace negotiations. Any negotiations with the rebels as a part of peace-talks will necessitate some form of impunity, bringing it in direct conflict with the ICC.
- The belief that local justice systems (based on reintegration of ex-combatants) will be damaged needs to be taken cautiously.
- Attitudes about forgiveness are diverse among Ugandan people. The evidence shows that there is no rejection of international justice, but relief at its arrival and concern at how it will be applied.
The risks associated with the intervention have not been properly addressed by the ICC, leading to exacerbated rumours about the Court’s role and intentions. Many of the issues of concern raised remain important and need to be monitored in the future.
- Child protection agencies and other concerned parties should focus on the repeated emphasis in ICC’s Rome statute on acting in the interest of justice and the interest of victims.
- The Ugandan Government, ICC and donors need to ensure that special procedures are in place to prevent violent revenge attacks if prosecution proceeds. The practice of ICC staff needs to be reviewed regularly.
- Proper assessment of child abduction numbers need to be made, as well as a follow-up of those who have passed through reception centres.
- Donors, aid agencies and the Government of Uganda need to start planning for the post-war situation.
