Search results

Abstract
One intersection between scholarship and practice in international humanitarian law is observable in international litigation concerning violations of the law of war. An interesting example in this regard recently arose in the case by the Democratic Republic of the Congo against Uganda for war-related claims. At the reparations phase, the Court decided not to rely solely on the submissions of the Parties, but to task certain scholars and other experts to answer evidentiary questions. Yet, when the Court's judgment was issued in February 2022, the role of these experts turned out to be almost negligible, with one significant exception. The overall lesson may be that – while the work of scholars can be highly important for claims practice relating to international humanitarian law – it has its limits, such as when proving and quantifying mass civil injury resulting from a lengthy and complex armed conflict.

802Human rights — Discrimination and unequal treatment — Applicant charged with offences arising from alleged activities during rebellion in northern Uganda — Amnesty Act — Applicant renouncing rebellion and seeking amnesty — Applicant denied amnesty under Amnesty Act — Amnesty Commission and Director of Public Prosecutions granting amnesty to others renouncing rebellion — Whether reasonable and objective criteria for denying applicant amnesty — Whether applicant victim of discrimination and unequal treatment under Amnesty Act — Article 21 of Constitution of UgandaRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Customary international law — Crimes against international law — Amnesty — Legality and constitutionality of Amnesty Act — Constitution of Uganda — Uganda's international law obligations — Whether Uganda violating Uganda's obligations under international treaties ratified and implemented in domestic law — Geneva Conventions Act — Whether Amnesty Act inconsistent with Article 287 of Constitution of Uganda — Whether uniform international standards or practices prohibiting States from granting amnesty — Guarantees of constitutional independence of Director of Public Prosecutions and judiciary — Whether Amnesty Act infringing Articles 120, 126 and 128 of Constitution of Uganda — Whether Amnesty Act null and void under Article 2(2) of Constitution of UgandaWar and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Rebellion in northern Uganda — Applicant charged with offences under Geneva Conventions Act — Amnesty Act — Legality and constitutionality of Amnesty Act — Applicant renouncing rebellion and seeking amnesty — Whether right to amnesty — Whether provisions of Amnesty Act inconsistent with Articles 120, 126, 128 and 287 of Constitution of Uganda — Whether Amnesty Act null and void under Article 2(2) of Constitution — The law of Uganda

At the time Rwanda and Uganda helped President Laurent Kabila come to power in the DRC (then Zaire) in May 1997, any critical observer would have anticipated that Uganda and Rwanda had become formidable allies. And no one, at that time doubted that a big regional force of these two allies had emerged, which force was strong enough to reckon with. It seems, it is the realisation of the existence of this force that prompted the Southern African allies, namely Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and others to join the war v the DRC on the side of Kabila. In the minds of the Southern Africa allies, the alliance between Uganda and Rwanda was poised to play a dominant role in the DRC- the third largest country on the African continent, rich in minerals and natural resources and geographically (and strategically) centred in the heart of the Africa.

519Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Crimes against international law — Amnesty — Legality and constitutionality of Amnesty Act — Constitution of Uganda — Uganda's international law obligations — Whether Uganda violating Uganda's obligations under international treaties ratified and implemented in domestic law — Geneva Conventions Act — Whether applicable — Whether Amnesty Act impinging on prosecutorial powers of Director of Public Prosecutions — Whether Amnesty Act granting blanket amnesty for all crimes — Whether uniform standards in respect of amnesty — Whether Amnesty Act inconsistent with Constitution of UgandaHuman rights — Discrimination and unequal treatment — Respondent charged with offences arising from alleged activities during rebellion in northern Uganda — Amnesty Act — Respondent renouncing rebellion and seeking amnesty — Respondent denied amnesty under Amnesty Act — Director of Public Prosecutions granting amnesty to others renouncing rebellion — Whether respondent victim of discrimination and unequal treatment under Amnesty Act — Whether respondent entitled to amnesty under Amnesty ActWar and armed conflict — Armed conflict — Distinction between international and non-international armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Rebellion in northern Uganda — Respondent charged with offences under Geneva Conventions Act — Amnesty Act — Constitutionality of Amnesty Act — Respondent renouncing rebellion and seeking amnesty — Whether right to amnesty — Whether Director of Public Prosecutions acting within his powers in prosecuting respondent for specific crimes under Geneva Conventions Act — War crimes and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions — The law of Uganda