On 26 June 2026, the Democratic Republic of Congo initiated a legal action against Rwanda before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial body. The DRC has alleged that Rwanda bears legal responsibility for prolonged violence in eastern Congo, including killings, sexual abuse, forced displacement, torture and other serious violations. The application connects these alleged abuses to the continuing consequences of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, after which armed groups and former genocidal elements moved into eastern Congo, turning the region into a lasting theatre of instability.[1]

This is not the first time the DRC has sought the Court’s intervention, but its earlier attempts did not result in a substantive ruling. One case was discontinued in 2001, and another was rejected in 2006 after the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction.[2] In a recent interview, Rwanda’s Foreign Minister dismissed the DRC’s ICJ case as politically driven rather than a serious legal effort. Kigali argues that Kinshasa has failed to meet its commitments under the 2025 Washington peace agreement, especially the pledge to neutralise the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda), FDLR, which Rwanda identifies as a genocidal group. Rwanda also frames its role in eastern Congo as a security response, citing alleged Congolese cooperation with armed groups, drone attacks, hate speech and violence against Congolese Tutsi communities.[3]

DRC at the ICJ: Third Time’s the Charm?

The DRC’s present move must be understood against the background of earlier cases before the ICJ. The Congo wars produced some of the Court’s most important rulings on the use of force, occupation, state responsibility, natural resources and reparations. In 1999, the DRC brought proceedings against Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi in relation to military activities on Congolese territory.[4] The cases against Rwanda and Burundi did not proceed in the same way due to jurisdictional weaknesses. The Uganda case, however, became a landmark decision because Uganda had accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.

In the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case, the ICJ examined whether Uganda’s military presence in the DRC was lawful. Uganda argued that it had acted with Congolese consent and in self-defence against anti-Ugandan rebel groups operating from Congolese soil. The Court rejected these arguments. It held that any earlier consent from the DRC had been withdrawn by August 1998 and that Uganda could not rely on self-defence because the relevant armed attacks were not legally attributable to the Congolese state. The Court therefore found that Uganda had violated the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.[5]

The Uganda case was significant for another reason. The ICJ held that Uganda was an occupying power in Ituri because it had exercised authority there in place of the Congolese government. This finding created legal consequences. Uganda was required to protect civilians,........

© IDSA