http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-7695
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the Juba peace negotiations on accountability and reconciliation. It advances a new interpretation of the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, focusing on five justice features: national proceedings, restorative accountability, alternative sentencing, individual responsibility and forward-looking victimhood. The article argues that the nature of the agreed justice policy derives from negotiators and mediators’ pursuit of international legitimation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its compliance constituency. This argument has implications for our understanding of the role of the ICC in internationally judicialised peace processes: the need for peace agreement legitimation combined with the legitimacy requirements in such peace processes structurally constitutes the ICC as metaphorically present in the negotiation room and thus akin to a third-party actor.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Ben Schiff and Louise Chappell for encouraging me to explore issues of legitimacy in situations of ICC involvement. I would also like to thank the reviewers of JEAS for their helpful comments on the article. All errors remain my own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
Line Engbo Gissel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-7695
Notes
1. Allen, Trial Justice; Kakaire, “Ugandan Mediator Critical”; Lomo and Otto, “Not a Crime to Talk.”
2. Orentlicher, “‘Settling Accounts’ Revisited’”; Unger and Wierda, “Pursuing Justice in Ongoing Conflict.”
3. “Letter to Security Council,” para. 7; Moreno-Ocampo, Building a Future on Peace and Justice, 9.
4. Buchanan and Keohane, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions”; Clark, “Legitimacy in a Global Order”; Schmidt, “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited.”
5. Horton, “Political Legitimacy, Justice and Consent”; Powell, “Two Courts Two Roads.”
6. Waal, “Violence and Peacemaking,” 17.
7. Salamanca, “Colombia,” 27.
8. Jung and Shapiro, “South Africa’s Negotiated Transition”; Rynhold and Cohen, “Envisaging a Peace Referendum.”
9. Arnault, “Legitimacy and Peace Processes”; Goddard, “Brokering Peace.”
10. Mason, “Mediation in African Peace Processes,” 15.
11. Bell, “Peace Agreements”; Sheeran, “International Law, Peace Agreements.”
12. Bell, “Peace Agreements,” 377–8.
13. Kastner, “Towards Internalized Legal Obligations.”
14. Mackay, “Multimodal Legitimation,” 325.
15. Bexell, “Global Governance, Legitimacy and (De)Legitimation.”
16. Lund and Sikor, “Access and Property”; Shankar, “The Embedded Negotiators.”
17. Goddard, “Brokering Peace,” 505.
18. Laura Filardo, “A Comparative Study of the Discursive Legitimation”; Jung and Shapiro, “South Africa’s Negotiated Transition.”
19. Clark, “Legitimacy in a Global Order”; Goddard, “Brokering Peace”; Zaum, “International Organizations, Legitimacy, and Legitimation.”
20. Ibid. See also Bexell, “Global Governance, Legitimacy and (De)Legitimation.”
21. Goddard, “Brokering Peace.”
22. Ibid.
23. Kerr, “International Judicial Intervention.”
24. Gissel, “Justice Tides.”
25. Bernstein, “Legitimacy in Intergovernmental and Non-state Global Governance.”
26. Ibid., 19.
27. Arsanjani and Reisman, “The Law-in-Action.”
28. Alter, The New Terrain of International Law, 53.
29. Allen, Trial Justice; Arnould, “Transitional Justice and Democracy in Uganda”; Branch, “Uganda’s Civil War”; Finnström, “Reconciliation Grown Bitter”; Freeland, “Rebranding the State”; Nouwen, Complementarity in the Line of Fire; Roach, “Multilayered Justice”; Rodman and Booth, “Manipulated Commitments”; Schomerus, “Even Eating.”
30. Apuuli, “The ICC’s Possible Deferral”; Greenawalt, “Complementarity in Crisis”; see also Rodman and Booth, “Manipulated Commitments.”
31. Branch, Displacing Human Rights; Dolan, Social Torture; Finnström, Living with Bad Surroundings.
32. Schomerus, “Even Eating,” 138.
33. Dolan, Social Torture; Schomerus, “Even Eating.”
34. Schomerus, “Even Eating,” 68.
35. The Monitor, “I Am Not a Terrorist.”
36. Mukasa, “Museveni Gives Joseph Kony Final Peace Offer.”
37. US Embassy, “A/S Frazer Discusses.”
38. Government of Uganda, Referral of the Situation.
39. “The Juba Peace Initiative.”
40. LRA/M, Opening Speech.
41. Atkinson, “‘The Realists in Juba?’”
42. Otim and Wierda, “Justice at Juba,” 23.
43. Afako, “Reconciliation and Justice.”
44. Interview, member of the LRA/M delegation, Kampala, 23 March 2011.
45. Otim and Wierda, “Justice at Juba,” 23.
46. LRA/M, A Synopsis on Uganda Peace Talks.
47. US Embassy, “Northern Uganda Notes (June 4–16, 2007).”
48. Quoted in ibid.
49. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation.
50. See also Apuuli, “Taking Stock of the First Arrest Warrants”; Nouwen, Complementarity in the Line of Fire, chap. 3.
51. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, cl. 2.1.
52. Ibid., cl. 14.5 and 14.6.
53. Interviews, member of the LRA/M delegation, Kampala, 23 March 2011 and member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
54. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Implementation, para. 37.
55. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, cl. 3.1 and 3.2.
56. Ibid., cl. 4.
57. “The Juba Peace Initiative,” 7.
58. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, cl. 5.2 and 5.3.
59. “The Juba Peace Initiative,” 8.
60. Interviews, members of the government delegation to the Juba Talks, Kampala, 5 April 2011 and 22 May 2011, respectively.
61. Quoted in Greenawalt, “Complementarity in Crisis,” 115n.
62. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, cl. 6.3, cl. 6.3.
63. “The Juba Peace Initiative,” 7.
64. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, cl. 6.3, Part 1 and cl. 3.1.
68. Ibid., cl. 12.iv and 11ii.
69. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, 4 February 2013.
70. See also Baaré, “Negotiating Security Issues,” 27.
71. Schomerus, “Even Eating,” 177–81.
72. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, preambular para. 1.
73. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, 4 February 2013.
74. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, cl. 8.1.
75. Wegner, Ambiguous Impacts, 20.
76. Greenawalt, “Complementarity in Crisis,” 118.
77. Machar, “Report and Recommendations,” para. 14; Schomerus, “Even Eating,” 233, 238, 242.
78. Schomerus, “Even Eating,” 245; US Embassy, “Kony Living.”
79. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
80. Rugunda, Update on the Juba Peace Process.
81. Interview, member of the LRA/M delegation, Kampala, 23 March 2011. The identity of the advisor is known to the author and the person was interviewed but requested anonymity.
82. See also Nouwen, Complementarity in the Line of Fire, chap. 3.
83. Interview, observer participant, 12 June 2010.
84. Ibid. The War Crimes Division of the High Court was later named the International Crimes Division of the High Court.
85. Hottinger, “Interview: Julian Hottinger,” 15.
86. Quoted in Clottey, “Uganda’s Govt Denies Media Reports.”
87. Nouwen, Complementarity in the Line of Fire, 53; see also Jurdi, “Some Lessons on Complementarity.”
88. International Criminal Court, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Warrants of Arrest.
89. Nouwen, Complementarity in the Line of Fire, 120–1.
90. Interview with member of the mediation, Kampala, 19 April 2011. See also Kazooba and agencies, “LRA Threatens War.” The same view was expressed by the Chairman of the Amnesty Commission, Justice Onega, in Maseruka and Ariko, “Scrap Blanket Amnesty.”
91. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
92. Interviews, member of the mediation team, Kampala, 19 April 2011, and observer participant, Kampala, 12 June 2010.
93. US Embassy, “Northern Uganda Notes (July 15–28, 2007)”; see also Unger and Wierda, “Pursuing Justice,” 271.
94. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
95. Kazooba and agencies, “LRA Threatens War.”
96. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
97. Goddard, “Brokering Peace.”
98. Rodman and Booth, “Manipulated Commitments,” 294.
99. Greenawalt, “Complementarity in Crisis,” 120.
100. Interview, member of the mediation team, London, UK, 4 February 2013.
101. Nyakairu, “Govt Plans Special Court.”
102. International Criminal Court, “[Transcript, Status Conference]”; US Embassy Kampala, “Northern Uganda: Proposed Press Statement.”
103. International Criminal Court, “[Transcript, Status Conference].”
104. Ibid., 29.
105. Quoted in Apuuli, “The ICC’s Possible Deferral,” 811.
106. “Uganda: Agreement and Annex on Accountability,” 22; “The June 29 Agreement.”
107. “Letter to Security Council.”
108. “Uganda: Agreement and Annex on Accountability,” 4.
109. International Criminal Court, The Importance of Justice.
110. Moreno-Ocampo, Building a Future on Peace and Justice, 9.
111. International Criminal Court, “[Transcript, Status Conference],” 31.
112. Government of Uganda and LRA/M, Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, preambular para. 3.
113. Schomerus, “Even Eating.”
114. Office of the Prosecutor, “ICC Prosecutor Supports.”
115. Office of the Prosecutor, “Statement of ICC Prosecutor,” para. 3.
116. Interview with member of the mediation team to Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation, Nairobi, 5 May 2011; Office of the Prosecutor, “Statement of ICC Prosecutor,” para. 4.
117. BBC, “Colombia Referendum.”
118. BBC, “Colombian Congress.”
119. On a framework for studying levels of ICC involvement, see Gissel, “Justice Tides.”
120. Bensouda, “International Justice and Diplomacy.”