This thesis analyzes the development of national justice processes in Uganda in the wake of war in order to address key theoretical dilemmas that have recently emerged in the field of transitional justice. I focus on closely connected debates over the exclusion of socioeconomic justice, the relationship between international, national and local actors, the role of transitional justice discourse, and ultimately, the future of the field itself. Based on fieldwork undertaken in Kampala, the Acholi district and the temporary international arena created in Kampala for the 2010 ICC Review Conference, this thesis traces the role of local, national and international actors in the war itself, the search for peace, and the current post-conflict period. I examine the ways in which actors at all levels narrate the northern conflict and accordingly negotiate and contest the nature, scope and course of post conflict justice. I argue that the struggle for a meaningful approach to transitional justice is global in dimension. The power to define and perform postwar justice is concentrated in the hands of the state. A high risk persists that Uganda's transitional justice policy will prove an empty performance of 'victor's justice.' International and domestic actors alike have shaped and justified the Ugandan Government's self-interested approach and facilitated the dominance of international criminal justice. Conversely, civil society actors at all levels in Uganda draw on transitional justice as a radical language of resistance to fight for meaningful change. As long as it fails to address socioeconomic issues and structural violence however, transitional justice discourse will ultimately fall short of giving political voice to local priorities, and activating long-term social transformation. I argue that the field of transitional justice must be re-envisioned to embrace socioeconomic justice, in order to impel the endless pursuit of a just society. This task will require the collective efforts of a global constellation of actors.

Diplomatic stalemate at the seat of the UN Security Council is by no means a recent problem. Nevertheless, it may be argued that 'American unilateralism' reached its apex in July 2002, when the United States stood its ground and demanded immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court ("ICC") for US peacekeepers. This request was accompanied by the heavy-handed and deadly serious threat to veto the renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, a threat which was realised over the course of the debates. This political brinkmanship, which pitted the United States against friends and foes alike, finally ceased when the US agreed to accept a Security Council Resolution offering a twelve-month deferral of prosecution for peacekeepers before the ICC. It is the legality of this Resolution which is the focus of this thesis. This thesis will expose the Resolution to the limits of international law and question the legitimacy of the tactics employed by the US. It will argue that in order to appease the recalcitrant superpower, the Security Council passed a Resolution contrary to both the Rome Statute of the ICC and the UN Charter. With the ICC still in its embryonic stage, this thesis will suggest the responses available to the Court when faced with a Resolution of such dubious legality which affects its jurisdiction to try the most heinous crimes known to humanity.

Univ., Diss.--München, 1999.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Kiel, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (LL.M.). / Written for the Faculty of Law. Title from title page of PDF (viewed 2009/09/04). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (D.Jur.Sc.)--University of Melbourne, Faculty of Law, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 309-321). Also available online at the University of Melbourne ePrint Repository.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2009. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 241-271).

In international criminal law (ICL), legal meaning has been developed substantially through the judgments of international courts. Compared to some of their prosecutorial decisions, however, the way in which international judges have interpreted legal provisions has remained relatively uncontested. This study uses practice theory as a particularly fruitful lens through which to study the politics of legal interpretation. It analyses the conditions under which the creation of a comparatively uncontested judicial space became possible as an interplay between political commitments and the professional assumptions of ICL experts. The study argues that international criminal courts - unlike hybrid courts - have been accorded a particularly high degree of interpretive authority through what will be called the 'practice of privileged precedent'. It traces how this interpretive practice has been shared across institutional settings within a broader interpretive community, including by government officials and civil society representatives. Through this research, this thesis emphasises the relevance of legal interpretation for IR's understanding of international law and international courts. Drawing on legal theory, it also addresses one of the key challenges of IR's practice turn: its capacity to account for the creative potential of international practices. Methodologically, the thesis combines qualitative and quantitative forms of content analysis, elite interviews, and legal interpretive methods. It is based on an examination of over 100 judgments of international and hybrid criminal courts interpreting the crime of genocide and the law of war crimes, including judicial decisions delivered by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). This analysis is supplemented by 28 elite interviews with judges and legal experts at international criminal courts, staff at civil society organisations, and government officials working for the British and German foreign offices.

Recent debates on transitional justice have concerned whether the field responds to the needs of victims who have suffered serious crimes. At the global level, the International Criminal Court (ICC) serves as the most visible institution of transitional justice and is most famous for its prosecutions of war criminals. Critics of the Court question its relevance to victims and allege that it embodies a Western form of justice, prioritizing retribution over restoration of victims' lives and societies. Often overlooked, however, is the Court's sister organization, the Trust Fund For Victims (TFV). Also established by the Rome Statute, the TFV is mandated to deliver court-ordered reparations to victims as well as to provide assistance to those affected by crimes under ICC jurisdiction. This assistance mandate creates a novel opportunity to reach a wide scope of affected individuals and to bring international justice directly to those who need it most. This thesis reviews research on transitional justice and employs the Trust Fund as a case study of localizing transitional justice through reparative assistance. This study concludes that the reparative assistance, when designed to respond to victims' needs, has material and symbolic significance to victims that meet the goals of transitional justice.

Complementarity, the organizing principle of the International Criminal Court (ICC), is a largely untested concept in terms of its ability to instigate State compliance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC made its debut at a time when States were routinely accused of non-compliance with international law, particularly international criminal law. Due to perennial concerns over the protection of State sovereignty, an ingenious system of allocation of competencies between States and the ICC was evolved. This is embodied by the principle of complementarity. At the heart of complementarity is an arrangement by which States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC are regarded as the prime fora for the prosecution of crimes of grave concern to the international community. In the event of inaction, however, the ICC is mandated to wrest specific cases from the jurisdiction of national courts and try them. In effect, a carrot-and-stick mechanism has been built into the Rome Statute to induce States to comply with the Statute. This thesis examines the principle of complementarity from a theoretical perspective, bearing in mind contemporary international law structures and institutions. A better understanding of the theoretical assumptions of complementarity, it is suggested, will foster a more effective application of the tenets of the Rome Statute within the municipal system. The thesis argues that complementarity is a catalyst for implementation of the Rome Statute only to the extent to which it alters or re-defines well established and encumbering procedures and norms within the municipal system. In this regard, although South Africa’s status of constitutional democracy may be reason to expect that the obligations imposed by the Rome Statute will be observed, that very fact may increase the inclination to preserve the “baseline of conduct” rather than be swayed by the Rome Statute. An illustrative excursion into South African rules and norms is undertaken, after which the argument is advanced that not much change has been effected to the South African legal landscape through implementation of the Rome Statute. The sole exception to this is the issue of prosecutorial discretion. On this, the South African legislature has uniquely crafted a mechanism for ensuring accountability, presumably with a view to ensuring that South Africa is always able to prosecute the crimes concerned. However, the thesis cautions against complacency, arguing that the tension between national law and international obligations may yet play itself out, owing to insufficient attention to the role of national courts in giving effect to the Rome Statute. The act of implementation may be a response to stimuli such as the perceived need to avoid civil liability for international crimes, or the general inertia of implementing human rights instruments. Therefore, the carrot-and-stick mechanism may be lacking in the compulsive qualities it is presumed to have. Through an exploratory survey of South African law, the thesis illustrates that prosecutorial accountability is the major factor in determining whether a State has fully complied with is obligations under the Rome Statute. However, it also points out that the way courts of law apply the new norms in municipal systems in the future will be crucial.