Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T12:26:54.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ICJ—prohibition against the use of force—self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter—duty of vigilance—IHR and IHL under belligerent occupation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Daniel Bodansky  and
James Thuo Gathii
James Thuo Gathii
Affiliation:
Albany Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). At <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

International Court of Justice, December 19, 2005.

In its December 19, 2005, judgment in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo v. Uganda (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Uganda to have engaged in grave violations of the prohibition on the use of force and of its international humanitarian and human rights obligations during its occupation of Congelese territory. The Court also found that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for its treatment of Ugandan diplomats and also for the destruction of their diplomatic premises and the associated archives and records.

The train of events leading to this case originated in May 1997 with President Laurent-Desire Kabila's deposition of Zairean dictator Mobutu-Ssese Seko. Having come to power with Ugandan and Rwandese military assistance, Kabila was unsuccessful in his effort to remove Ugandan and Rwandese troops from the DRC (paras. 48–50). The DRC alleged that in August 1998, Ugandan armed forces invaded (para. 29) and then captured and occupied Congolese towns and territory in defiance of Kabila's decision that Ugandan and Rwandese forces should leave the DRC (para. 29–31). Further, the DRC contended that Uganda recruited, funded, trained, equipped, and supplied armed Congolese groups opposed to the Kabila government (para. 32).

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 142 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

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) (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 19, 2005). The decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are available at <http://www.icj–cij.org>.

2 This argument was not one that Uganda relied on for the pre–September 11, 1998 period (para. 112); Uganda claimed self–defense only for the period between September 11, 1998, and July 1999.

3 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, para. 190 (June 27).

4 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 2004 ICJ Rep. 131 (July 9).

5 Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Hague Convention [No. IV] Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 1 Bevans 631.

6 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287.

7 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

8 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.

9 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 ILM 58 (1982).

10 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 UNTS 3.

11 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, GA Res. 54/263, annex I (May 25, 2000).

12 Judge Simma makes it clear he had the ‘Bush doctrine’ of preemptive war in mind in his separate opinion (para. 11) See also James, Gathii, Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Pre–emptive War Under Customary International Law, 43 Osgoode Hall L. J., 67 (2005)Google Scholar.