Dueling Ideals: Bridging the Gap Between Peace and Justice

Abstract

When the United Nations drafted the Rome Statute, it intended to create an entity, what would eventually become the International Criminal Court, that would enforce criminal justice on an international level. The Member States, upon which the authority of the ICC depends, are often far more concerned with simply ending the offenses and achieving peace than they are with prosecuting the perpetrators. As a result of this ideological conflict between peace and justice, the efficiency and value of the ICC is jeopardized. This Note discusses the current situation in Uganda as an example of the conflict of interests between a Member State and the court. After initiating the ICC’s investigation into the Lord’s Resistance Army, a militant group that has plagued the northern region of the country for decades, Uganda has since requested that the prosecution of the rebel leaders be discontinued in order to achieve peace. By examining the interests of both the ICC and the Member States, this Note argues that the language of the Rome Statute has a provision which can be interpreted in a manner that would protect the credibility and goals of every party involved.