Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DR Congo v.
Uganda) Use
of Force – Necessity and Proportionality
I.C.J. 168 | December 19, 2005
Dane Nuesa & Nica Pine
Petitioners: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Respondents: Uganda
Recit-Ready:
The DRC asked the Court to decide that Uganda had engaged in “armed
aggression” in the DRC. It argued 1) that Uganda (a) engaged in military
and paramilitary activities against the DRC, (b) occupied DRC territory,
and (c) provided military, logistic, financial and economic support to
armed groups in the DRC who operated against the government; 2) that
Uganda committed and failed to prevent violations of human rights and
humanitarian law; and 3) that Uganda engaged in and failed to prevent
the illegal exploitation of Congolese natural resources.  Uganda provided training and military support to the MLC.  Relying on
In 1997, President Kabila came into power in the DRC, with the help of
Uganda and Rwanda. Initially, Ugandan and Rwandan forces were
present in the DRC following DRC’s invitation and consent. Then, the
DRC’s relations with Uganda and Rwanda deteriorated, and on 28 July
1998, President Kabila announced the withdrawal of the DRC’s consent
to Rwandan military presence in the DRC. Later in 1998, Kabila accused
both Ugandan and Rwandan forces of invading the DRC. In 2003,
Ugandan forces completely withdrew from the DRC. DRC argued that
Uganda occupied DRC territory, while Uganda argued its presence in the
DRC was justified:1) until 11 September 1998, based on DRC’s invitation;
2) from 11 September 1998 until 10 July 1999, based on self-defense;
and, 3) from July 1999 until June 2003, based on DRC’s consent. For the
justification no.2, they claim that in response to this “grave threat, and
in the lawful exercise of its sovereign right of self-defense”, it made a
decision on 11 September 1998 to augment its forces in eastern Congo
and to gain control of the strategic airfields and river ports in northern
and eastern Congo.
Issue: W/N Uganda had violated the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the DRC by the unlawful use of force? YES
Ruling: ABOUT CONSENT: DRC consent to the Ugandan troop presence
had been effectively withdrawn by August 1998.  The Court found that
the April 1998 Protocol on troop presence did not require more formal
renunciation.
ABOUT SELF-DEFESENSE: The Court rejected Uganda’s claim of self-
defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Uganda did not claim that it
used force against an anticipated attack. The Court therefore rejected
Uganda’s claim without reaching the question whether Uganda’s use
of force met the necessity and proportionality requirements of self-
defense.  The Court observed, however, that the taking of airports and
towns many hundreds of kilometers outside Uganda’s border would not
seem proportionate to the series of transborder attacks it claimed had
given rise to the right of self-defense, nor to be necessary to that end.
its earlier opinion in  Nicaragua v. USA, the Court affirmed that the
principle of non-intervention prohibits a State to intervene, directly or
indirectly, with or without armed force, in support of an internal
opposition in another State.
Doctrine: Uganda had violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the DRC, that Uganda’s actions constituted an interference in the
internal affairs of the DRC, and that the unlawful military intervention
by Uganda was of such a magnitude and duration that the court
considers it to be a grave violation of the prohibition on the use of
force
FACTS
 The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of Uganda (Uganda) in
respect of a dispute concerning “acts of armed aggression perpetrated
by Uganda on the territory of the DRC, in flagrant violation of the UN
Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”
 In addition to the cessation of the alleged acts, DRC sought reparation
for acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of
 national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of the
respective respondent States.
 Congo requested the following:
1. that Uganda, by engaging in military and paramilitary
activities against the DRC, by occupying its territory and by
actively extending military, logistic, economic and financial
support to irregular forces having operated there, has
violated the principles of conventional and customary law
such as non-use of force in international relations, including
the prohibition of aggression.
2. That Uganda, by committing acts of violence against nationals
of DRC, by killing and injuring them or despoiling them of
their property, by failing to take adequate measures to
prevent violations of human rights in the DRC by persons
under its jurisdiction or control, and/or failing to punish
persons under its jurisdiction or control having engaged in the
above-mentioned acts, has violated principles of conventional
and customary law.
3. That the Uganda, by engaging in the illegal exploitation of
Congolese natural resources, by pillaging its assets and
wealth, by failing to take adequate measures to prevent the
illegal exploitation of the resources of the DRC by persons
under its jurisdiction or control, and/or failing to punish
persons under its jurisdiction or control having engaged in the
above-mentioned acts, has violated principles of conventional
and customary law
 Uganda filed three counter-claims: (1) the DRC used force against
Uganda in violation of the Article 2(4) of the UN Charter; (2) the DRC
allowed attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in
Kinshasa in violation of the law of diplomatic protection; and (3) the
DRC violated certain elements of the 1999 Lusaka Agreement.
 [FACTS relevant to SYLLABUS] In substantiating their claim for the first
contention, Congo claimed that Uganda supported Congolese armed
groups opposed to President Kabila’s Government.
o Uganda contended that on 4 August 1998 there were no Ugandan
troops present in either Goma or Kitona, or on board the planes
referred to by the DRC. It claims that upon assuming power,
President Kabila invited Uganda to deploy its troops in eastern
Congo since the Congolese army did not have the resources to
control the remote eastern provinces, and in order to
“eliminate” the anti-Ugandan insurgents operating in that zone
and to secure the border region.
o It did not send additional troops into the DRC during August 1998
but states, however, that by August-September 1998, as the DRC
and the Sudan prepared to attack Ugandan forces in eastern
Congo, its security situation had become untenable. Uganda
submits that in response to this “grave threat, and in the lawful
exercise of its sovereign right of self-defense”, it made a decision
on 11 September 1998 to augment its forces in eastern Congo
and to gain control of the strategic airfields and river ports in
northern and eastern Congo.
o Finally, under the terms of the bilateral Luanda Agreement, signed
on 6 September 2002, Uganda agreed to withdraw all its troops
from the DRC, except for those expressly authorized by the DRC
to remain on the slopes of Mt. Ruwenzori. Uganda claims that it
completed this withdrawal in June 2003 and that since that time,
“not a single Ugandan soldier has been deployed inside the
Congo”
[OTHER FACTS]
 In its Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda,
the DRC referred, as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction, to several
contentions.
 However, the Government of the DRC informed the Court on 15
January 2001 that it intended to discontinue the proceedings
instituted against Burundi and Rwanda, stating that it reserved the
right to invoke subsequently new grounds of jurisdiction of the Court.
 The two cases were therefore removed from the List on 30 January
2001. 329.Among the many points, DR Congo alleges that the Republic
of Uganda committed acts of violence against nationals of Congo by
killing, injuring them, despoiling them of their property, by failing to
take adequate measures to prevent violations of human rights.
 DRC claims that the Ugandan armed forces perpetrated wide-scale
massacres of civilians during their operations in the DRC, and it
resorted to acts of torture and other inhumane and degrading
treatment.
 One of these incidents is the clash between Uganda and Rwanda in
the city of Kisangani in 1999 and 2000.
 DR Congo also claims that these violations were committed:
1. That several Congolese children were abducted by the UPDF and
taken to Uganda for military training.
2. Ugandan armed forces failed to protect the civilian population in
combat operations. They said that the attacks carried out by IPDF
were without any distinction between combatants and non-
combatants.
3. That the Ugandan troops were involved in ethnic conflicts
between groups in the Congolese population.
 In short, DRC argues that Uganda has breached its obligation of
vigilance incumbent upon it as an occupying Power by failing to
enforce respect for human rights and international humanitarian
law.
 On the other hand, Uganda argues that DRC has consistently failed to
provide credible evidentiary basis to support its allegations of the
latter’s allegations.
 Moreover, Uganda argues that DRC’s claims relating to the Kisangani
incident between Uganda and Rwanda are inadmissible.
 Uganda submit that the court cannot have jurisdiction over this
incident because Rwanda has not given its consent.
 According to Uganda, Rwanda’s legal interests form “the very subject
matter” of the decision which DR Congo is seeking, and that a decision
of the Court covering these events would infringe the “indispensable
third party” principle.
o Uganda argues that its culpability as a consequence of the
conduct of its armed forces, can only be assessed on the basis
of appropriate legal standards if the conduct of Rwanda’s
armed forces is also assessed at the same time.
o In the absence of evidence as to the role of Rwanda in the
alleged violations, then it would be impossible to know if self-
defense can be availed of by Uganda, and with respect to how
much of the damages it is really liable for.
 DRC on the other hand argues that Rwanda’s absence from these
proceedings is totally irrelevant and such cannot prevent the court
from ruling on the question of Uganda’s responsibility. This is so
because DRC’s claim is for the recognition of Uganda’s sole
responsibility by its own use of force.
o DRC continues by saying that the Court can adjudicate on the
events in Kisangani regardless of whether it was Rwanda or
Uganda who was responsible for initiating the hostilities.
o Since the application was filed against Uganda is
independent, then it is Uganda’s responsibility which is the
subject matter, and the doctrine of indispensable third party
does not apply.
ISSUE: W/N Uganda had violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the DRC by the unlawful use of force? YES
HELD:
Uganda had violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC
by the unlawful use of force.
 [on the contention regarding consent] The Court relied on official UN
reports and the findings of the Porter Commission to conclude that
DRC consent to the Ugandan troop presence had been effectively
withdrawn by August 1998.  The Court found that the April 1998
Protocol on troop presence did not require more formal renunciation,
and that later agreements, i.e., the Lusaka and the Luanda Agreement,
did not legalize the Ugandan troop presence in DRC, but rather served
as modus operandi for the troop withdrawal.
 [on the contention regarding self-defense] The Court rejected
Uganda’s claim of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Uganda did not claim that it used force against an anticipated attack. 
Thus the questions were whether there had been an actual armed
attack on Uganda, and if so, whether the DRC was the party
responsible for it.  But Uganda never claimed it was under attack from
the armed forces of the DRC, and the Court found no satisfactory
evidence that the government of the DRC was involved in the attacks
by other forces that did occur. The Court therefore rejected Uganda’s
claim without reaching the question whether Uganda’s use of force
met the necessity and proportionality requirements of self-defense. 
The Court observed, however, that the taking of airports and towns
many hundreds of kilometers outside Uganda’s border would not
 seem proportionate to the series of transborder attacks it claimed had of hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda does not impinge on
given rise to the right of self-defense, nor to be necessary to that end. this finding
 While the Court concluded that there was no credible evidence to
suggest that Uganda created the Movement for the Liberation of
Congo (MLC), an irregular force that fought against the DRC
government, it found that Uganda provided training and military
support to the MLC.  Relying on its earlier opinion in Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua  (Nicaragua v. United
States of America), the Court affirmed that the principle of non-
intervention prohibits a State to intervene, directly or indirectly, with
or without armed force, in support of an internal opposition in another
State.
 The Court thus held that Uganda had violated the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the DRC, that Uganda’s actions constituted an
interference in the internal affairs of the DRC, and that the unlawful
military intervention by Uganda was of such a magnitude and
duration that the court considers it to be a grave violation of the
prohibition on the use of force expressed in Art. 2 paragraph 4 of the
Charter.

For the doctrine of indispensable parties (you can skip this cause it’s not
the relevant part of the syllabus anymore)
The issue is whether or not the court can take cognizance of the
Kisangani incident even if Rwanda is not impleaded in the case.
 The Court held that yes, because the indispensable third party
principle does not apply. Court observed that it is not precluded
from adjudicating upon the claims submitted to it in a case in
which a third State “has an interest of a legal nature which may be
affected by the decision in the case” provided that “the legal
interests of the third State which may possibly be affected do
not form the very subject-matter of the decision that is applied
for.”
 In the present case, the interests of Rwanda clearly do not
constitute the very subject matter of the decision on DRC’s claims
against Rwanda, nor is the determination of Rwanda’s
responsibility a prerequisite for such a decision. The fact that
some alleged violations of international human rights law and
international humanitarian law by Uganda occurred in the courts