EXTRACT
This paper examines the criticism that the ICC obstructs peace in Northern Uganda. It aims to go beyond the simplistic framework of peace vs. justice, which suggests that the pursuit of peace requires abandoning aspirations of justice and that the ICC should immediately withdraw the indictments against the LRA leaders. It also challenges the contrary, but equally simplistic view, according to which a peace settlement must imperatively include strong mechanisms of accountability, therefore suggesting that the ICC should maintain the indictments at all costs. Instead, this paper seeks to provide a differentiated analysis, looking at costs and benefits of the ICC's intervention in terms of bringing about peace in Northern Uganda. The analysis takes into account the particularities of the Ugandan context and evaluates the ICC's intervention in the context of broader strategies of conflict resolution. While the pressure generated by the ICC indictments was instrumental to bringing the LRA to the negotiating table in the first place, they now potentially constitute a major stumbling block to the successful conclusion of peace negotiations, especially considering that LRA cadres are primarily motivated by their own survival and safety. As a peace incentive, the ICC should consider removing the threat posed by the indictments in the eventuality that the LRA makes a credible and verifiable commitment to laying down their arms. In order not to undermine the credibility of the ICC, the removal of the indictments should be performed within the legal framework of the Rome Statute, either via United Nations (UN) Security Council deferral (Art. 16) or preferably via the ICC Prosecutor's own decision that withdrawal is "in the interest of justice" (Art. 53.2.c).