"In the interests of justice?" The International Criminal Court, peace talks and the failed quest for war crimes accountability in northern Uganda
"In the interests of justice?" The International Criminal Court, peace talks and the failed quest for war crimes accountability in northern Uganda
复制标题
“为了正义？”
DOI：
10.1080/17531055.2017.1379702
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Macdonald A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Macdonald A
本文分析了在国际刑事法院（ICC）调查的背景下进行的第一次和平谈判：上帝抵抗军和乌干达政府之间的朱巴会谈（2006-2008）。它利用实地研究和原始资料，摆脱了老生常谈的和平与正义的辩论，提供了新的经验材料，探讨法院的存在如何影响朱巴的国内政治动态。缔约国认为，在广泛的言辞方面，法院的存在在谈判各方之间造成了严重的不和。然而，在实际层面上，它为达成共识创造了空间，但不是国际司法促进者所设想的那种空间。双方都把法庭视为一种需要遏制和控制的干预。这导致了政治上权宜的《问责与和解协议》，该协议展示了过渡时期司法“工具包”，但其基础是逃避国际刑事司法管辖的共同愿望。鉴于过渡时期司法协议的实际复杂性，约瑟夫·科尼最终拒绝了该协议，他越来越不信任自己在朱巴的谈判小组。在与其他背景相关的调查结果中，本文深入分析了围绕国际刑事法院干预的国内政治动态如何产生了一个旨在保护双方免受战争罪问责的国家过渡时期司法框架。
This article analyzes the first peace talks to take place against the backdrop of an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation: the Juba Talks between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda (2006–2008). Drawing on field research and original source material, it departs from well-worn peace versus justice debates and provides new empirical material to explore how the presence of the court shaped domestic political dynamics at Juba. It argues that at the level of broad rhetoric, the presence of the court created significant discord between negotiating parties. On a practical level, however, it created space for consensus, but not the type envisaged by international justice promoters. The court came to be seen by both sides as an intervention that needed to be contained and controlled. This resulted in the politically expedient Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, which showcased a transitional justice “tool-kit,” but was based on a shared desire to evade the jurisdiction of international criminal justice. Given its practical complexity, the transitional justice agreement was ultimately rejected by Joseph Kony, who became increasingly distrustful of his own negotiating team at Juba. In findings relevant to other contexts, the article presents in-depth analyses of how domestic political dynamics around the ICC intervention produced a national transitional justice framework designed to protect both parties from war crimes accountability.