The southern Sudanese border has been flung into the spotlight of late, once again because of a civil war. This time its not Sudan's own war, but that of neighbouring Uganda.

A new chapter in the two-decade conflict was opened on 17 September 2006 when Joseph Kony, leader of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA)-the primary rebel force in Uganda-arrived in Sudan for talks with the Ugandan Government that he once terrorized. Amid mass inter-national appeal for his indictment, LRA has begun to fulfil its obligations to the recently negotiated ceasefire. However, this precarious peace hinges on one issue of serious contention: the granting of amnesty for Kony and other LRA leaders. The result has only complicated the ongoing debate regarding the role of national sovereignty and its relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.

The question of amnesty is of the utmost importance, not simply in the consideration of a sustained peace but also when one reflects on the atrocities committed by LRA. According to Human Rights Watch, the actions of the Resistance Army are among the most atrocious criminal acts ever committed and have been universally denounced in international humanitarian law. Even until the most recent negotiations, LRA has continued to employ horrific tactics, sadly all too common in African conflicts. Despite the obvious progress made through the recently proposed armistice, one must ask: "What will be the overall costs, domestically and internationally, of setting a precedent for amnesty?"

As civil wars go, African conflicts have historically proven to be the bloodiest. Considering the proposition of amnesty for LRA, two fundamental questions arise: first, "Is amnesty in tune with the psychological and sociocultural aspects of victim recovery?" Many scholars would say no. Obtaining justice is often seen as a vital recovery step-for it clearly reinforces that the crimes committed were universally unacceptable-and acts as a deterrent for future carnage. Furthermore, because of the integrated role of the victim in the ICC, retribution also fundamentally assists in the healing process on a national level. From this perspective, amnesty for the primary actors in such a conflict would be a horrific notion.

Conversely, however, many will correctly note that such retributive actions have a clear historical stigma. As a deterrent, the threat of legal prosecution is often quite limited. Socially speaking, culturally grounded and discourse-based reconciliation, rather than formal punishment, might offer a more appropriate avenue to conflict resolution. This divergence illustrates one of the clear ideological conflicts in international politics. What is more essential to social progress-peace or justice-and at what price does each come?"

During recent proceedings, a second and more nuanced concern has emerged. Does the Ugandan Government, under President Yoweri Museveni, even have the authority to offer amnesty as a bargaining chip? National sovereignty suggests that the Government is in fact well within its rights in dangling amnesty as the preverbal golden carrot. However, Uganda, which has signed and ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC, obliges its Government to cooperate with the Court. These circumstances complicate the situation, for wounded nations historically have been willing participants during the ad hoc tribunals.

Liberia, as of late, has also had to struggle with this complicated question, essentially forcing its President, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, to choose between domestic tranquility and international justice. With the detainment of the country's former leader, Charles Taylor, in early 2006, Ms. Sirleaf's hand was forced-her administration is now in full support of the ICC. Liberia seems to be maintaining at least the air of stability, and time will tell if it will hold.

Similarly, the Ugandan Government is at a political juncture. On the one hand, there is the hope for a sustained peace; on the other, the promise of international justice. Both are vital to reconstruction, but one must supersede the other, plotting a course that may set a global tone in matters of war crimes. Ultimately, if history is any indicator, not only is it impossible to attain both peace and justice simultaneously, but rarely is even one of these lofty goals easily achieved. As in many international discussions, answers are never clear-cut. Only time will be the true judge.