Abstract

People have always thought about and worked to create spaces where they might be shielded from greater vulnerability and access to the necessities of life to protect themselves from the devastation caused by social and natural calamities. From this point on, man sought to build and organise society following the inherent nature of socialisation. To do this, he entered the stage of systemic life and, based on the tenet of accepting the social contract, created an institution that served as the first pillar of the political system. In times of armed conflict, nations do not have an unfettered freedom to pick their tactics and weapons of war; instead, they are only permitted to employ those that inflict suffering. This is the first principle of international humanitarian law (IHL), a subset of international law. And second, it protects the lives, health, and dignity of those who have not joined the fight or have stopped their engagement in it. Take civilians, prisoners of war, the injured, and the ill, as examples. By passing laws to do so, humanitarian law aims to stop excessive violence during times of conflict. Yet, the sole focus of humanitarian law is on protecting war victims and minimising their brutality, with no consideration given to the origins of war or its legitimacy. In this project, the researcher will analyse the case from Uganda’s perspective and how it violated international humanitarian principles through its activities. Uganda during its occupation of parts of the Congo, committed acts of violence against civilians, using child soldiers, and plundering natural resources. The Court also held that Uganda was liable for reparations to the Congo, including compensation for damages caused by its violations of International Humanitarian Law.

Keywords