Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T21:23:52.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Sotirios-Ioannis Lekkas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2023

Sotirios-Ioannis Lekkas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 9, 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its judgment on the reparations phase of the Armed Activities (DRC v. Uganda) case which related to the Democratic Republic of Congo's (DRC) claims against Uganda arising from the Second Congo War.1 The judgment concluded a case which had all the hallmarks of a landmark: an exceptionally large-scale, protracted, and complex armed conflict, a key actor as the respondent, and virtually unfettered material jurisdiction of the Court. As a reminder, in 1999, the Court was seised with DRC's claims against Uganda arising from the (then ongoing) Second Congo War. Similar claims against Rwanda and Burundi failed before reaching the merits stage. In 2005, the Court rendered its judgment on the merits declaring Uganda responsible for violating the principle of non-use of force and non-intervention by the acts of its own forces and by supporting armed groups in the DRC.2 The Court also found Uganda responsible for breaches of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and for plundering DRC's natural resources.3 The Court concluded that Uganda had to make reparation to the DRC for the injury caused by its internationally wrongful acts and enjoined the parties to enter into negotiations for that purpose.4 After almost ten years of sporadic and fruitless discussions, in 2015, the DRC brought the case back to the Court for conclusive resolution.

Type
New Voices in International Law: Remedies and Reparations for Individuals Under International Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 116 , 2022 , pp. 217 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment (Feb. 9, 2022), at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20220209-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (hereinafter, Armed Activities, Reparations).

2 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 2005 ICJ Rep. 16, para. 345(1) (Dec. 19).

3 Id., para. 345(3)–(4).

4 Id., paras. 261, 345(5)–(6).

5 ILC, Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries, II(2) Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 31, Art. 31 (2001).

6 Armed Activities, Reparations, supra note 1, para. 78.

7 Id., paras. 78, 95.

8 Id., paras. 84, 97.

9 Id., para.118.

10 Id., para. 119.

11 Id., para. 93.

12 Id., paras. 94, 97.

13 Id., para. 94.

14 Id., para. 98.

15 Id., para. 124; see, e.g., Er. Eth. Cl. Comm'n, Final Award—Eritrea's Damages Claims (Er./Eth.), 26 RIAA 512, para. 36 (2009); Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3728, Ordonnance de réparation en vertu de l'article 75 du Statut, para. 38 (Mar. 24, 2017).

16 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment, para. 41 (Feb. 9, 2022) (sep. op., Robinson, J.), at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20220209-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf.

17 Armed Activities, Reparations, supra note 1, para. 106.

18 Id., paras. 162–64, 181, 192–93, 204–05, 223–24.

19 See, e.g., Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment, para. 9 (Feb. 9, 2022) (dec., Tomka, J.), at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20220209-JUD-01-01-EN.pdf; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment, paras. 22–36 (Feb. 9, 2022) (sep. op, Yusuf, J.), at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20220209-JUD-01-02-EN.pdf; Armed Activities, Reparations (sep. op., Robinson, J.), supra note 16, paras. 2–6; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment, para. 18 (Feb. 9, 2022) (dec., Salam, J.), at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20220209-JUD-01-04-EN.pdf.

20 See, e.g., Armed Activities, Reparations (dec., Tomka, J.), supra note 19, para. 7; Armed Activities, Reparations (sep. op., Yusuf, J.), supra note 19, para. 42; Armed Activities, Reparations (sep. op., Robinson, J.), supra note 19, para. 47; Armed Activities, Reparations (dec., Salam, J.), supra note 19, para. 18.

21 See, e.g., Jadhav (India v. Pak.), Judgment, 2019 ICJ Rep. 418, para. 115 (July 17).

22 ARSIWA, Art. 33(2).

23 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 ICJ Rep. 136, para. 153 (July 9).

24 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.; Greece intervening), Judgment, 2012 ICJ Rep. 136, para. 94 (Feb. 3).

25 Id., para. 102.

26 ILC, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, II(2) Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 26, Art. 19(c) (2006); Cyprus v. Turkey, App. No. 25781/94, Just Satisfaction, para. 58 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts. May 12, 2014), at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-144151; Georgia v. Russia, App. No. 13255/07, Just Satisfaction, para. 77–79 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts. Jan. 31, 2019), at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-189019.

27 Armed Activities, Reparations, supra note 1, para. 408.

28 Id.

29 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment, para. 27 (Feb. 9, 2022) (diss. op., Daudet, J. ad hoc), at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20220209-JUD-01-06-FR.pdf; Diane Desierto, The International Court of Justice's 2022 Reparations Judgment in DRC v. Uganda: “Global Sums” as the New Device for Human Rights-Based Inter-State Disputes, EJIL:Talk! (Feb. 14, 2022), at https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-court-of-justices-2022-reparations-judgment-in-drc-v-uganda-a-new-methodology-for-human-rights-in-inter-state-disputes.