Examining the Legal Implications of the Reparations Regime Principles of The Impugned Decision of The International Criminal Court in Thomas Lubanga’s Case
https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2025.1.31.039-062
Abstract
The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga’s case remains a notable decision that gave rise to the first reparative justice regime of the Trial Chambers of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on war crimes of child soldiering. In line with the provisions of Art. 75(1) of Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC), this work notes that ICC established several relevant principles related to reparations along with its application. It examines the implications of the evolved principles developed by ICC with respect to their implementation in International Criminal Law (ICL). The article touches on the impediments affecting the court as it relates to the enforcement of the emerged principles. The work argues amongst others that the legal consequences of the slow development of reparations principles under the ICL architecture through case-by-case analysis, unclear definition of collective reparation, large number of victims, unsettled view on causation, large beneficiary factors, financial constraints of the convicted persons, are some challenges facing the development of reparations regime of the ICC. Significantly, the work identified the existing gaps that affect the reparations process. It concludes by making recommendations capable of enhancing the growth of reparations principles in ICL.
About the Authors
O. N. Okereke
Kogi State University
Nigeria
Nigeria
Obinna Nnanna Okereke, PhD in International Criminal Law, Research Scholar, Faculty of Law, Prince Abubakar Audi
Anyigba, Kogi State
U. Nnawulezi
Bowen University
Nigeria
Nigeria
Uche Nnawulezi, PhD in International Humanitarian Law, Senior Lecturer, Department of Public and International Law, College of Law
Scopus ID: 57406905100
Iwo Osun State
References
1. Balta, A., Bax, M. and Letschert, R., (2018). Trial and (Potential) Error: Conflicting Visions on Reparations Within the ICC System. International Criminal Justice Review, 29(3):105756771880754, doi: 10.1177/1057567718807542.
2. Blanchi, H., (1994). Justice as Security: Towards a System of Crime Control. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
3. Cassese, A., (2005). International Law. Oxford University Press.
4. Dwertmann, E., (2010). The Reparations System of the ICC: Its Implementation, Possibilities and Limitations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
5. Evans, Ch., (2012). The Right to Reparations in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
6. Gaeta, P., (2011). Are Victims of Serious Violations of IHL entitled to Compensation? In: International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Hynd, S., (2021). Trauma, Violence and Memoir in African Child Soldiers Memoirs. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 45(3), pp. 74–96, doi: 10.1007/s11013-020-09668-4.
8. Kurt, M.E, (2013). The Lubanga Case of the ICC: A Critical Analysis of the Trial Chambers Findings on Issues of Active Use, Age and Gravity. Goettingen Journal of International Law, 5(2), pp. 431–453.
9. Letschert, R., Haveman, R., Brouwer, A.-M., Pemberton, A., (eds), (2011). Victimological Approaches to International Crimes: Africa. Oxford, Antwerp: Intersentia.
10. McCarthy, C., (2009). Reparations Under the Rome Statute of the ICC and Reparative Justice Theory. International Journal of Transnational Justice, 3(2), pp. 250–271.
11. McGonigle Leyh, B., (2011). Procedural Justice? Victim Participation in International Criminal Proceedings. Series: School of Human Rights Research. Vol. 42. Oxford, Antwerp: Intersentia.
12. Moffett, L. and Sandoval, C., (2021). Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court. Leiden Journal of International Law, 34(3), pp. 749–769, doi: 10.1017/S092215652100025X.
13. Mumba, F., (2001). Ensuring a Fair Trial Whilst Protecting Victims Witnesses: Balancing of Interest. In: May, R., et al. (eds). Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence. Nijhoff : Brill.
14. Nollkaernper, A., (2003). Concurrence Between Individual Responsibility and Statute Responsibility in International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(3), 615–640, doi: 10.1093/iclq/52.3.615.
15. Rivas, G., (2006). The Reparations Provisions for Victims Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes. Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges. Permanent Court of Arbitration. Oxford University Press.
16. Roach, K., (2000). Challenging Punishment at the Turn of the Century: Restorative Justice on the Rise, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(3), pp. 249–280.
17. Squares, C.M, (2015). How the Law Should View Voluntary Child Soldiers, Does Terrorism Posed a Different Dilemma? SMU Law Review, 68, pp. 567–592.
18. Stahn, C., (2015). Reparative Justice after the Lubanga Appeal Judgment: New Prospects for Expression and Participatory Justice or “Juridified Victimhood” by other Means. Journal of International Criminal Justice. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2586332 [Accessed 15.03.2025].
19. Wagner, N., (2013). A Critical Assessment of Using Children to Participate Actively in Hostilities in Lubanga, Child Soldiers and Direct Participation. Criminal Law Forum, 24, pp. 145–203, doi: 10.1007/s10609-012-9194-0.
20. Wenger, K.D., (2007). Reparations Within the Rule of Law. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 29(2), 231–249.
21. Wlersing, A., (2012). Lubanga and Its Implications for Victims Seeking Reparations Under the ICL. Amsterdam Law Forum, 4(3), pp. 21–39.
22. Yuvaraj, J., (2018). When Does a Child Participate Actively in Hostilities Under The Rome Statute? Protecting Children from Use in Hostilities After Lubanga. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 32(83), pp. 69–93.
Review
For citations:
Okereke O.N., Nnawulezi U. Examining the Legal Implications of the Reparations Regime Principles of The Impugned Decision of The International Criminal Court in Thomas Lubanga’s Case. Kutafin Law Review. 2025;12(1):39-62. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2025.1.31.039-062
Views:
104
Email this article 
