Justice without Peace? International Justice and Conflict Resolution in Northern Uganda

type="main"> This article examines the heated debate that resulted from the decision of the International Criminal Court to investigate the events surrounding the conflict between the Government of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army. The Court's decision to intervene in Uganda was heavily criticized by political, traditional and religious leaders from the region, and by officials from a number of international humanitarian organizations on the basis of its perceived threat to peaceful outcomes to the conflict. The analysis demonstrates how particular discursive constructs of ‘peace’ and ‘justice’ became central to the debate as opponents and supporters of the ICC intervention struggled to impose distinct frameworks for evaluating and addressing the situation. Though the struggle appeared to be about abstract concepts, the ability to control these constructs had tangible consequences on the ground, as such concepts were linked with particular strategies of conflict resolution. The article concludes that the unequal relations of power which existed from the outset gave supporters of the ICC intervention an advantage over those opposing the intervention, allowing agendas for justice to overtake agendas for peace.