Uganda’s ICC Engagement: Mounting Risks in a Shifting Global Order

Uganda’s engagement with the International Criminal Court (ICC) is deepening, but the potential costs appear to outweigh the expected benefits. Since 2018, Uganda has been represented at the Court by seasoned international judge Solomy Balungi Bossa. More recently, in December, the country nominated Judge Rosette Musoke-Morrison—an experienced legal professional with a background at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the ICC Office of the Prosecutor—for election to the bench. These moves signal Kampala’s intent to strengthen its footprint within the Court. However, this approach reflects an outdated strategic calculus. In a rapidly shifting global order, continued participation in the ICC increasingly exposes Uganda to political and economic risks that may surpass any anticipated gains.

One of Uganda’s key strategic partners, the United States, has long opposed the ICC. Washington declined to ratify the Rome Statute, citing concerns that the Court could prosecute American officials and constrain its foreign policy. In 2002, the U.S. enacted the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act—often referred to as the “Hague Invasion Act”—which restricts cooperation with the ICC and allows for the suspension of military and economic assistance to countries that support it. This policy has precedent: in the early 2000s, the U.S. cut military aid to more than 35 countries, including Colombia, Brazil, Mali, and Benin, until they agreed not to transfer American citizens to the Court.

During his second term, President Donald Trump intensified this posture through a shift toward a “Trade over Aid” policy, prioritizing economic partnerships over humanitarian assistance. Uganda felt the impact early, with reported declines in medical supplies, testing kits, and food aid, alongside rising mortality rates. In this context, Kampala faces mounting pressure to align with Washington’s priorities and deepen trade-based relations.

These developments coincide with renewed tensions between the United States and the ICC. Following investigations involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and cases related to Afghanistan, Washington imposed sanctions on 11 ICC judges, including Uganda’s Solomy Balungi Bossa. At the same time, proposed U.S. legislation targeting countries that cooperate with ICC actions against certain foreign officials signals an increasingly confrontational stance. Should Rosette Musoke-Morrison secure a judgeship, her involvement in sensitive cases could trigger further U.S. retaliation, including sanctions or reductions in aid—an especially critical concern given Uganda’s existing financial constraints.

Uganda also risks straining relations with Israel, a longstanding partner in security and technology. As the ICC continues its investigations into Israeli leadership, Ugandan judges may be required to participate in proceedings involving a key ally. Such involvement could create diplomatic friction and potentially undermine bilateral cooperation in defense and economic sectors.

Meanwhile, the tangible benefits of ICC membership remain limited. Although the Court convicted Dominic Ongwen for war crimes and crimes against humanity and ordered reparations, victims have yet to receive compensation due to his inability to pay. Similarly, despite an arrest warrant issued in 2005, Joseph Kony remains at large. Critics also point out that a disproportionate number of ICC cases—over 30 out of 34—have focused on African situations, raising concerns about selective justice and the vulnerability of African leaders to external political pressure.

In sum, Uganda’s continued participation in the ICC presents significant diplomatic and economic risks without delivering meaningful protection or justice outcomes for its citizens. The imbalance between costs and benefits suggests that the country may need to reassess its position, as the strategic value of ICC membership appears increasingly uncertain.