Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Available scholarship demonstrates that international institutions continue to play a fundamental role not only in peacebuilding initiatives but also in the provision of justice for victims in post-conflict societies (Meernik, Nicholas, & King 309).
This paper uses the Ugandan and South African case studies to locate the importance of international institutions in contributing to justice within a state after war or political aggression, and also the extent to which these institutions reflect problematic conceptions or relations of power that might hinder justice.
In terms of contributions, it can be argued that international institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) act to provide justice and truth in post-conflict societies with weak judicial systems, hence contributing to peacebuilding by removing war criminals and peace spoilers (Meernik et al 309).
By referring the political conflict concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) to the ICC for action to be taken on the principal perpetrators including the leader Joseph Kony, the Ugandan government hoped that such a legal process would bring lasting harmony and justice to the war-torn northern Uganda (Branch 179). This objective appears to have been met as it has been a while now since the LRA caused breached peace in Uganda, though analysts still believe that the guerilla outfit is still active.
It is also clear that international institutions contribute immensely to the achievement of peace and justice in post-conflict societies by deterrence (Meernik et al 309).
However, going by the Ugandan case, this contribution is yet to be validated as critics argue that the ICC interventions in Uganda have indeed complicated the situation by removing “the LRA’s command’s incentive to leave the bush, which has made peace talks difficult, if not impossible” (Branch 183).
According to these authors, it is obvious that nobody has the capacity to convince the LRA leaders in the Ugandan case to come to the negotiating table in the presence of international arrest warrants by the ICC.
Most of the international institutions adopt the Nuremburg model in ensuring that they use the due process to serve justice to war crimes perpetrators and victims (Mamdani 33). In this context, institutions such as the ICC are seen to contribute to justice by judiciously dealing with perpetrators while contributing to enhancements in human rights and the sustenance of peace.
But while it is clear that most international institutions adopt the Nuremburg model in developing interventions aimed at achieving justice and healing, a challenge exists in that politically-instigated mass violence cannot be holistically perceived as a criminal matter since the criminal actions it involves have profound political consequences (Mamdani 33).
When deeply entrenched political interests and power games are involved, international institutions have largely been unable to provide the needed justice as most are seen as interested parties in the conflict (Branch 185). For instance, the ICC has often been accused in the Ugandan cases as a decoy used by Western powers to destabilize nations for political gains.
Some commentators are of the opinion that international institutions such as the ICC have no capacity to provide justice due to their overreliance of the Nuremberg model, whereby powerful countries are seen to take the role of both the prosecutor and the judges (Mamdani 33).
In such a situation, it would be plausible to employ the CODESA and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) models, which originated from South Africa when the country was seeking to bring justice to victims of the apartheid era. In the South African context, a local solution was found to deal with apartheid conflicts when TRC granted amnesty in return for truth-telling and seeking for forgiveness (Mamdani 33-34).
Lastly, the potential for international institutions to avail justice in post-conflict societies appears limited by the institutions’ orientation to deal with those in power while forgetting that they too could have been instrumental in fueling conflicts or committing atrocities. In the Ugandan case, for example the government-instigated violence has been largely downplayed in ICC investigations as the Office of the Prosecutor limits its focus to LRA’s brutality (Branch 182).
Works Cited
Branch, Adam. “Uganda’s Civil War and the Politics of ICC Intervention.” Ethics & International Affairs. 21.2 (2007): 179-198. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Mamdani, Mahmoud. “The Logic of Nuremburg.” London Review of Books. 35.21 (2013): 33-34. Web.
Meernik, James D., Angela Nicholas and Kim L. King. “The Impact of International Tribunals and Domestic Trials on Peace and Human Rights after Civil War.” International Studies Perspectives. 11.4 (2010): 309-334. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.