## Facts

- In the context of the Second Congo War (1998–2003), Uganda deployed and maintained forces in eastern territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
- The DRC brought proceedings alleging unlawful use of force, violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity, breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law, and exploitation of natural resources.
- Uganda asserted that its intervention was based on DRC consent and, later, justified by self-defence against anti-Ugandan armed groups operating from Congolese territory.
- The Court previously indicated provisional measures requiring both States to refrain from aggravating the dispute and to respect human rights and applicable humanitarian law.
- Uganda filed counterclaims; the Court admitted counterclaims concerning (i) alleged DRC aggression against Uganda and (ii) attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises, personnel, and nationals in Kinshasa.
- On the merits, the Court examined whether and when consent existed for Ugandan troop presence; whether self-defence justified Uganda’s actions; whether Uganda exercised effective control amounting to occupation in parts of the DRC; and responsibility for abuses and resource exploitation in areas under Ugandan control.
- The Court reserved the quantification of compensation, directing the parties to attempt agreement and providing for judicial determination if they failed to do so.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction under the parties’ optional-clause declarations and whether Uganda’s counterclaims were admissible.
2. Whether Uganda’s military presence in the DRC was consensual, and if not, whether it violated the prohibition on the use of force and the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
3. Whether Uganda could justify its operations as self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter and customary international law.
4. Whether Uganda became an occupying power in parts of the DRC and, if so, whether it breached IHL and international human rights obligations in occupied areas.
5. Whether Uganda was responsible for looting, plundering, and exploitation of Congolese natural resources and for property damage in areas under its control.
6. Whether the DRC incurred responsibility for attacks on Uganda’s diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and for any alleged uses of force against Uganda.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction under Article 36(2) and proceeded to decide the main claims and admissible counterclaims.
- The Court found Uganda’s troop presence was initially permitted by the DRC but that consent was withdrawn by at least 8 August 1998; continued presence thereafter violated the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the UN Charter prohibition on the use of force.
- The Court held Uganda’s use of force in the DRC from early August 1998 to July 1999 was not justified as self-defence because the conditions for individual self-defence (including an armed attack and necessity and proportionality) were not satisfied on the record.
- The Court determined Uganda was an occupying power in parts of the DRC (including Ituri) and held Uganda internationally responsible for serious violations of IHL and international human rights law committed by its forces and other forces under its control in those areas.
- The Court held Uganda internationally responsible for looting, plundering, and exploitation of Congolese natural resources, and related property damage, in areas under Ugandan control.
- On counterclaims, the Court found the DRC responsible for failing to protect Uganda’s diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa, violating obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law, and owing reparation to Uganda.
- The Court rejected Uganda’s counterclaim that the DRC committed acts of aggression against Uganda’s territory.
- The Court held both States were obligated to make reparation for injury caused by their internationally wrongful acts, leaving the amount of compensation to agreement or later determination by the Court.

## Legal Principles

- Consent may render foreign troop presence lawful, but it may be withdrawn without special formalities; continued presence after withdrawal violates sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force.
- Self-defence under Article 51 and customary law requires a qualifying armed attack and compliance with necessity and proportionality; failure to satisfy these conditions defeats a self-defence justification.
- Effective control over foreign territory can establish belligerent occupation, triggering duties under the law of occupation to protect civilians and property and to maintain public order and safety.
- A State is internationally responsible for IHL and human-rights violations committed by its armed forces, and for violations by other forces under its control, in areas where it exercises authority.
- Exploitation, pillage, and damage to public and private property in occupied territory breach obligations under the law of occupation and general international law protecting property during armed conflict.
- The receiving State must protect diplomatic premises and personnel; failure to do so violates the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary diplomatic law and entails reparation.
- Reparation is required for internationally wrongful acts; if parties cannot agree on compensation, a court may determine the amount.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Uganda’s continued military presence in the DRC after withdrawal of consent breached the prohibition on the use of force and Congolese sovereignty, that Uganda incurred responsibility as an occupying power for serious IHL and human-rights violations and for resource exploitation in areas under its control, and that the DRC separately incurred responsibility for attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises in Kinshasa, with reparations owed for the injuries caused.


Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 168 (Dec. 19)