Papers by Dr. Kuyang H A R R I E T Logo Mulukwat
Producing knowledge on and for transitional justice: reflections on a collaborative research project, 2021
This is an extract from a conversation we held as a research team at our final
project workshop. ... more This is an extract from a conversation we held as a research team at our final
project workshop. The team consists of two South Sudanese researchers who
conduct research in and on South Sudan, one Cameroonian researcher working
on Côte d’Ivoire, one Ivorian researcher working on Côte d’Ivoire, one German
researcher based in Switzerland conducting research on the African Union and
one British academic based in the UK, Switzerland and France who conducts
research in various country contexts on the subject of transitional justice, and
who is also the project lead. By the end of the project we felt perhaps closer
to each other than in the beginning – we had built trust and friendships, but
we had also gone through the hiccups and less comfortable moments of part-
nerships in practice. In the following discussion we refer to the Global North
and Global South as markers of our positionality and the varying access to
resources and power it might stand in for.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Faith in localisation? The experiences of local faith actors engaging with the international humanitarian system in South Sudan, 2022
Localisation, as it aims to shift power in the humanitarian system, will involve the increased in... more Localisation, as it aims to shift power in the humanitarian system, will involve the increased inclusion of local faith actors, those national and local faith-affiliated groups and organisations that are often first, and last, responders in crises and have been responding in humanitarian contexts for many years, but often in parallel to humanitarian coordination mechanisms. In primary research in South Sudan with local faith actors and international humanitarian actors, this article aims to examine the inroads and barriers to local faith actor involvement in the humanitarian system and the realisation of localisation with local actors such as these. The research is based on an ethnographic study in which researchers were imbedded in a humanitarian project that aimed to help bridge divides between local faith actors and the international humanitarian system. The findings are based on one-on-one and group interviews with 89 participants from a range of international and local, and faith and secular, organisations. Findings indicate that local faith actors are active in responding to crises and want to be linked to the humanitarian system, but they feel distanced from it and pigeonholed as local faith actors. Formalisation through the appropriate registration systems and then training and networking with the humanitarian system helped them build legitimacy and feel confident to participate in humanitarian coordination. International humanitarian actors can help bridge barriers by understanding and connecting with the local faith actors and challenging their own assumptions about who local faith actors are.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gender Norms, Conflict and Aid in South Sudan, 2017
This briefing paper is based on a small piece of research conducted in February 2017 by
Kuyang Ha... more This briefing paper is based on a small piece of research conducted in February 2017 by
Kuyang Harriet Logo (independent consultant) and Ranga Gworo (CSRF research adviser) for
the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF). It is intended to inform CSRF donors and
implementing partners about some of the implications of international assistance on trends
related to gender norms and conflict. Interviews and focus group discussions were carried out
in Rumbek and Yambio after a light literature review. Ethical considerations and restrictions to
the research are outlined in the main research paper. This briefing paper summarises the main
findings and recommendations from the research. It was written by Hesta Groenewald
(CSRF/Saferworld technical adviser).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Exploring Linkages of Traditional and Formal Mechanism of Justice and Reconciliation in South Sudan, 2018
South Sudan's Initial transitional justice planning processes sought to engage communities on rol... more South Sudan's Initial transitional justice planning processes sought to engage communities on roles and viabilities of local justice in supporting transitional justice initiatives and mechanisms prescribed in the August 2015 Agreement. Nonetheless, the planning processes hit a snag, when the conflict reignited in July 2016. The working paper pursues the discussion about the role that
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Aug_Sept_HAB_V5
Transitional Justice Mechanisms,
including the establishment of
a Hybrid Court for South Sudan
(H... more Transitional Justice Mechanisms,
including the establishment of
a Hybrid Court for South Sudan
(HCSS), were incorporated as part
of the September 2018 Revitalised
Agreement on the Resolution of the
Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS).1
Chapter Five of the R-ARCSS was a
blueprint for the state to deal with its
past, address impunity, and to foster
state stability and peace.2 However,
the political and military elites
continue to resist the establishment of
the HCSS because they do not want to
establish a court that could potentially
hold them accountable for human
rights violations and crimes against
humanity.3 Therefore, it remains
imperative that key stakeholders need
to engage the political leaders to agree
on what other options can be explored
to promote transitional justice and to
ensure that peace and reconciliation
processes are operationalised in the
country. This article will argue that
in the absence of the implementation
of the alternative mechanisms of
transitional justice on truth-telling
and reparations, societal instability
will continue to persist and the state
could potentially disintegrate
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Challenges to small arms and light weapons control in South Sudan, 2022
As part of a joint CACDA-Saferworld-SRIC project a non-
governmental Africa-China-Europe Expert W... more As part of a joint CACDA-Saferworld-SRIC project a non-
governmental Africa-China-Europe Expert Working Group
was set up in 2019 to increase awareness and engagement
on issues related to the illicit trade and diversion of arms
and ammunition into and within Africa. The uncontrolled
proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) is
one of the main factors sustaining armed violence on the
continent – particularly in over 35 non-international armed
conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Expert Working Group
engages in policy dialogue, consultations with officials and
civil society, fact-finding visits and research. South Sudan is
one of three countries selected for comparative analysis on
the problems associated with the proliferation of SALW and
challenges to arms control, and for identifying areas where
actions need to be taken by national and international
stakeholders to tackle those problems.
South Sudan gained its independence on 9 July 2011;
two years later, it became embroiled in a civil war.1 The
on-and-off five-year civil war fuelled an unprecedented
armed violence crisis and massive national and sub-national
insecurity. A peace agreement (the Agreement on the
Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan,
ARCSS) was signed in 2015 and ‘revitalised’ in 2018 after
repeated outbreaks of civil war. The agreement’s provisions
on security arrangements, security sector reform (SSR), and
demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) of
the armed forces are yet to be implemented.2 This legacy of
conflict has left SALW in the hands of civilians and former
combatants in the absence of capacities to control and
regulate their use.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Political Stakes of Displacement in South Sudan, 2021
This policy brief considers how forced displacement has affected South Sudan, in relation to its ... more This policy brief considers how forced displacement has affected South Sudan, in relation to its neighbours. The
brief shows:
Humanitarian aid is only partially accessible for internally displaced people and returning displaced
people face a myriad of problems.
The politics around internally displaced persons governance remains rooted in ethnically polarized
divisions resulting in gazetted Protection of Civilian Sites.
There is a seemingly deliberate policy of the state to create conflict and force civilians to seek refuge in
the neighbouring countries.
Regional power dynamics reflect the changing dynamics of the states in the region in hosting South
Sudanese refugees. While refugees contribute to the economies of the states in the region, the influx
of South Sudanese refugees is also putting immense pressure on resources.
The changing perception of displaced people in South Sudan and neighbouring Uganda. Displacement
is highly ethnic and politicized like never seen before, while cordial relations between South Sudan
refugees and host are strained.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Playing politics with knowledge: the works of multiple actors within IGAD PLUS, 2021
Before the independence of South Sudan on 9 July 2011, the Sudan had a turbu-
lent history and ha... more Before the independence of South Sudan on 9 July 2011, the Sudan had a turbu-
lent history and had experienced two civil wars. The first civil war was waged
between 1955 and 1972 and the second civil war was waged between 1984
and 2005. The second civil war came to an end when the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development (IGAD),1 with the assistance of Troika, which is
comprised of the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and Norway,
mediated the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 9 January 2005. The
CPA provided for a referendum allowing South(ern) Sudan to choose whether
to remain united with the Sudan or become independent. After a successful
six-year interim period which ended in 2011, the South overwhelmingly voted
to separate from the Sudan in the same year. The South eventually became
independent on 9 July 2011. On 15 December 2013, two years after independ-
ence, South Sudan’s civil war started (De Vries and Schomerus, 2017). Since
independence, South Sudan remains embroiled in a senseless war and disarray.
The situation in South Sudan is “more than a breakdown of the rule of law and
order” (Mamdani, 2016). The violence is political. IGAD, and later IGAD
PLUS, again intervened as mediators and the Agreement for the Resolution of
the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS), including its stipulations on transitional
justice and the establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS),
was signed on 17 August 2015.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Fragmentation of Peacemaking in South Sudan: Reality and Perception, 2022
Attempts to manage and resolve the conflict in South Sudan have seen the involvement of
numerous ... more Attempts to manage and resolve the conflict in South Sudan have seen the involvement of
numerous international actors, including neighbouring countries—namely Sudan, Uganda,
Ethiopia and Kenya—the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African
Union (AU), the so-called Troika (United States, United Kingdom, and Norway), as well as
the EU, China and the UN.
Interviews with a cross-section of national stakeholders demonstrate a deep sense of
scepticism about the efficacy of peacemaking and peacebuilding initiatives in South Sudan
to date and indicate great apprehension that these initiatives have had any positive impact
for the lives of ordinary citizens. Peacemaking and peacebuilding have been externally-
led, top-down initiatives with IGAD, the Troika and the AU leading peace efforts. These
are marked by an inadequate commitment from South Sudanese political elites, and a
disconnect between those elites and ordinary citizens’ quest for justice. Seldom fully
participatory and holistic, the peace negotiations are limited to the top political leaders
and are very detached from the victims and communities who have borne the brunt of
the war.
Western countries’ reduced engagement in the peace process and the appeal of non-
Western actors through their political and economic links have created space for non-
Western countries’ initiatives and new approaches to peace. Regional powers — especially
Sudan and Uganda — played a key role in the 2018 South Sudan’s peace agreement,
managing to persuade South Sudanese political leaders to make concessions during critical
peace negotiations. Among the global powers, China—South Sudan’s main trading partner,
with a “no strings attached relationship” —has found a peacemaking role in South Sudan,
a country that continues to test China’s diplomatic leadership and political commitment.
While peace remains extremely fragile in South Sudan, the country is also caught in the
middle of inter-regional rivalries. Most notable are the disputes between Egypt, Ethiopia
and Sudan regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) hydropower project,
with South Sudanese leaders trying to maintain good relations with all the neighbouring
countries while also engaging in mediation efforts between them.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gender norms, conflict sensitivity and transition in South Sudan, 2022
South Sudan continues to face recurring violent conflict, food insecurity, corruption, and povert... more South Sudan continues to face recurring violent conflict, food insecurity, corruption, and poverty.
Despite positive shifts within national legislation on gender equality, political, social, and economic
power in South Sudanese society continues to reflect the deep patriarchy within society. The role of
women and men, reflecting the gender norms of their respective cultural milieus, in both resolving and
driving conflict is often not well understood by aid actors. Patterns of marginalisation, affecting both
women and men, stem from the colonial era and were largely present during the Second Sudan Civil
War. These patterns continue to intersect with conflict, leading to a build-up of toxic masculinities and
violence in South Sudan. Addressing gender inequality, poverty and violence using a conflict-sensitive
approach is vital for peace in South Sudan, as well as its long-term development. Aid actors should
ensure this process is inclusive, with particular attention paid to marginalised and disempowered
women and girls, men and boys.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gender Equality and Civicness in Higher Education in South Sudan, 2021
Kuyang has published on knowledge production and transitional justice, international humanitarian... more Kuyang has published on knowledge production and transitional justice, international humanitarian law, customary law, and gender issues. Dr. Kuyang is currently a Fellow of the Rift Valley Institute, a member of the Expert Working Group of the Africa-China-Europe, promoting dialogue and cooperation to prevent the diversion of arms and ammunition in Africa, and a research fellow on the Data and Displacement Project at the University of Warwick.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 2015
The conflict in South Sudan became the only viable violent way of expressing underlying disconten... more The conflict in South Sudan became the only viable violent way of expressing underlying discontentment with the style of governance adopted by the incumbent government and unresolved issues from the 1991 split which occurred when Dr. Riak Machar, one of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (splm/a) leaders at the time, now turned rebel leader, fell out with Dr. John Garang, the chairman of the splm/a. The split, notably referred to as the “Nassir split”, led communities from both the Dinka and Nuer tribes to turn against each other. The referendum, a consequence of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (cpa) between the government in Khartoum, Sudan, and the splm/a, led to an overwhelming vote for secession, later paving way for the subsequent independence of South Sudan in 2011. The existing tension took on a violent expression. The article analyses occurrences the splm/a command pursued on a secessionist agenda in the 21 years of armed struggle and the attainment of independence ...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In adopting legal pluralism, the South Sudanese legal system has witnessed severe gaps and challe... more In adopting legal pluralism, the South Sudanese legal system has witnessed severe gaps and challenges in the application of both customary and statutory laws. The disparity between customary lawlegal practices and formal legal provisions is glaring and the plurality has had a sad effect on the efficiency of the law to meet its basic purpose – justice dispensation. The application of customary law in the traditional courts and the application of statutory law in the formal courts is a parallel process, which has inadvertently left two competing versions of justice, with that sought from customary courts repressing the rights of litigants almost constantly. The duality of laws has converged to constantly challenge the legitimacy of both systems. While the state has remained the gravity of reforming the confusion, a classical theme of conflicting positions remains visible, especially with regards to subject matter jurisdiction. The duality of the two legal systems remains unresolved and efforts to harmonize the system are still in their formative stages and have hardly improved the functionality of each system. The confusion of the two legal systems might be traced back to the start of the second civil war (1983 – 2005), but most importantly, the side by side existence has been extremely troubled, and always pitting the statutory courts against the customary justice. Reformers have supported both customary and the formal legal systems, however the newly adopted common law and the customary law systems are at a very nascent stage, requiring much more support. While initiatives such as the developing a customary law strategy in 2009, customary law conferences, rule of law forums and the recent ascertainment conducted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have been implemented for over a decade, there has been minimal results and the current legal system still requires support in order for South Sudan to arrive at a more acceptable and highly functional legal system. Should legal pluralism continue to be the desired legal system, then workable approaches of disentangling the duality must be explored
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Dr. Kuyang H A R R I E T Logo Mulukwat
project workshop. The team consists of two South Sudanese researchers who
conduct research in and on South Sudan, one Cameroonian researcher working
on Côte d’Ivoire, one Ivorian researcher working on Côte d’Ivoire, one German
researcher based in Switzerland conducting research on the African Union and
one British academic based in the UK, Switzerland and France who conducts
research in various country contexts on the subject of transitional justice, and
who is also the project lead. By the end of the project we felt perhaps closer
to each other than in the beginning – we had built trust and friendships, but
we had also gone through the hiccups and less comfortable moments of part-
nerships in practice. In the following discussion we refer to the Global North
and Global South as markers of our positionality and the varying access to
resources and power it might stand in for.
Kuyang Harriet Logo (independent consultant) and Ranga Gworo (CSRF research adviser) for
the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF). It is intended to inform CSRF donors and
implementing partners about some of the implications of international assistance on trends
related to gender norms and conflict. Interviews and focus group discussions were carried out
in Rumbek and Yambio after a light literature review. Ethical considerations and restrictions to
the research are outlined in the main research paper. This briefing paper summarises the main
findings and recommendations from the research. It was written by Hesta Groenewald
(CSRF/Saferworld technical adviser).
including the establishment of
a Hybrid Court for South Sudan
(HCSS), were incorporated as part
of the September 2018 Revitalised
Agreement on the Resolution of the
Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS).1
Chapter Five of the R-ARCSS was a
blueprint for the state to deal with its
past, address impunity, and to foster
state stability and peace.2 However,
the political and military elites
continue to resist the establishment of
the HCSS because they do not want to
establish a court that could potentially
hold them accountable for human
rights violations and crimes against
humanity.3 Therefore, it remains
imperative that key stakeholders need
to engage the political leaders to agree
on what other options can be explored
to promote transitional justice and to
ensure that peace and reconciliation
processes are operationalised in the
country. This article will argue that
in the absence of the implementation
of the alternative mechanisms of
transitional justice on truth-telling
and reparations, societal instability
will continue to persist and the state
could potentially disintegrate
governmental Africa-China-Europe Expert Working Group
was set up in 2019 to increase awareness and engagement
on issues related to the illicit trade and diversion of arms
and ammunition into and within Africa. The uncontrolled
proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) is
one of the main factors sustaining armed violence on the
continent – particularly in over 35 non-international armed
conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Expert Working Group
engages in policy dialogue, consultations with officials and
civil society, fact-finding visits and research. South Sudan is
one of three countries selected for comparative analysis on
the problems associated with the proliferation of SALW and
challenges to arms control, and for identifying areas where
actions need to be taken by national and international
stakeholders to tackle those problems.
South Sudan gained its independence on 9 July 2011;
two years later, it became embroiled in a civil war.1 The
on-and-off five-year civil war fuelled an unprecedented
armed violence crisis and massive national and sub-national
insecurity. A peace agreement (the Agreement on the
Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan,
ARCSS) was signed in 2015 and ‘revitalised’ in 2018 after
repeated outbreaks of civil war. The agreement’s provisions
on security arrangements, security sector reform (SSR), and
demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) of
the armed forces are yet to be implemented.2 This legacy of
conflict has left SALW in the hands of civilians and former
combatants in the absence of capacities to control and
regulate their use.
brief shows:
Humanitarian aid is only partially accessible for internally displaced people and returning displaced
people face a myriad of problems.
The politics around internally displaced persons governance remains rooted in ethnically polarized
divisions resulting in gazetted Protection of Civilian Sites.
There is a seemingly deliberate policy of the state to create conflict and force civilians to seek refuge in
the neighbouring countries.
Regional power dynamics reflect the changing dynamics of the states in the region in hosting South
Sudanese refugees. While refugees contribute to the economies of the states in the region, the influx
of South Sudanese refugees is also putting immense pressure on resources.
The changing perception of displaced people in South Sudan and neighbouring Uganda. Displacement
is highly ethnic and politicized like never seen before, while cordial relations between South Sudan
refugees and host are strained.
lent history and had experienced two civil wars. The first civil war was waged
between 1955 and 1972 and the second civil war was waged between 1984
and 2005. The second civil war came to an end when the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development (IGAD),1 with the assistance of Troika, which is
comprised of the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and Norway,
mediated the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 9 January 2005. The
CPA provided for a referendum allowing South(ern) Sudan to choose whether
to remain united with the Sudan or become independent. After a successful
six-year interim period which ended in 2011, the South overwhelmingly voted
to separate from the Sudan in the same year. The South eventually became
independent on 9 July 2011. On 15 December 2013, two years after independ-
ence, South Sudan’s civil war started (De Vries and Schomerus, 2017). Since
independence, South Sudan remains embroiled in a senseless war and disarray.
The situation in South Sudan is “more than a breakdown of the rule of law and
order” (Mamdani, 2016). The violence is political. IGAD, and later IGAD
PLUS, again intervened as mediators and the Agreement for the Resolution of
the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS), including its stipulations on transitional
justice and the establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS),
was signed on 17 August 2015.
numerous international actors, including neighbouring countries—namely Sudan, Uganda,
Ethiopia and Kenya—the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African
Union (AU), the so-called Troika (United States, United Kingdom, and Norway), as well as
the EU, China and the UN.
Interviews with a cross-section of national stakeholders demonstrate a deep sense of
scepticism about the efficacy of peacemaking and peacebuilding initiatives in South Sudan
to date and indicate great apprehension that these initiatives have had any positive impact
for the lives of ordinary citizens. Peacemaking and peacebuilding have been externally-
led, top-down initiatives with IGAD, the Troika and the AU leading peace efforts. These
are marked by an inadequate commitment from South Sudanese political elites, and a
disconnect between those elites and ordinary citizens’ quest for justice. Seldom fully
participatory and holistic, the peace negotiations are limited to the top political leaders
and are very detached from the victims and communities who have borne the brunt of
the war.
Western countries’ reduced engagement in the peace process and the appeal of non-
Western actors through their political and economic links have created space for non-
Western countries’ initiatives and new approaches to peace. Regional powers — especially
Sudan and Uganda — played a key role in the 2018 South Sudan’s peace agreement,
managing to persuade South Sudanese political leaders to make concessions during critical
peace negotiations. Among the global powers, China—South Sudan’s main trading partner,
with a “no strings attached relationship” —has found a peacemaking role in South Sudan,
a country that continues to test China’s diplomatic leadership and political commitment.
While peace remains extremely fragile in South Sudan, the country is also caught in the
middle of inter-regional rivalries. Most notable are the disputes between Egypt, Ethiopia
and Sudan regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) hydropower project,
with South Sudanese leaders trying to maintain good relations with all the neighbouring
countries while also engaging in mediation efforts between them.
Despite positive shifts within national legislation on gender equality, political, social, and economic
power in South Sudanese society continues to reflect the deep patriarchy within society. The role of
women and men, reflecting the gender norms of their respective cultural milieus, in both resolving and
driving conflict is often not well understood by aid actors. Patterns of marginalisation, affecting both
women and men, stem from the colonial era and were largely present during the Second Sudan Civil
War. These patterns continue to intersect with conflict, leading to a build-up of toxic masculinities and
violence in South Sudan. Addressing gender inequality, poverty and violence using a conflict-sensitive
approach is vital for peace in South Sudan, as well as its long-term development. Aid actors should
ensure this process is inclusive, with particular attention paid to marginalised and disempowered
women and girls, men and boys.
project workshop. The team consists of two South Sudanese researchers who
conduct research in and on South Sudan, one Cameroonian researcher working
on Côte d’Ivoire, one Ivorian researcher working on Côte d’Ivoire, one German
researcher based in Switzerland conducting research on the African Union and
one British academic based in the UK, Switzerland and France who conducts
research in various country contexts on the subject of transitional justice, and
who is also the project lead. By the end of the project we felt perhaps closer
to each other than in the beginning – we had built trust and friendships, but
we had also gone through the hiccups and less comfortable moments of part-
nerships in practice. In the following discussion we refer to the Global North
and Global South as markers of our positionality and the varying access to
resources and power it might stand in for.
Kuyang Harriet Logo (independent consultant) and Ranga Gworo (CSRF research adviser) for
the Conflict Sensitivity Resource Facility (CSRF). It is intended to inform CSRF donors and
implementing partners about some of the implications of international assistance on trends
related to gender norms and conflict. Interviews and focus group discussions were carried out
in Rumbek and Yambio after a light literature review. Ethical considerations and restrictions to
the research are outlined in the main research paper. This briefing paper summarises the main
findings and recommendations from the research. It was written by Hesta Groenewald
(CSRF/Saferworld technical adviser).
including the establishment of
a Hybrid Court for South Sudan
(HCSS), were incorporated as part
of the September 2018 Revitalised
Agreement on the Resolution of the
Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS).1
Chapter Five of the R-ARCSS was a
blueprint for the state to deal with its
past, address impunity, and to foster
state stability and peace.2 However,
the political and military elites
continue to resist the establishment of
the HCSS because they do not want to
establish a court that could potentially
hold them accountable for human
rights violations and crimes against
humanity.3 Therefore, it remains
imperative that key stakeholders need
to engage the political leaders to agree
on what other options can be explored
to promote transitional justice and to
ensure that peace and reconciliation
processes are operationalised in the
country. This article will argue that
in the absence of the implementation
of the alternative mechanisms of
transitional justice on truth-telling
and reparations, societal instability
will continue to persist and the state
could potentially disintegrate
governmental Africa-China-Europe Expert Working Group
was set up in 2019 to increase awareness and engagement
on issues related to the illicit trade and diversion of arms
and ammunition into and within Africa. The uncontrolled
proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) is
one of the main factors sustaining armed violence on the
continent – particularly in over 35 non-international armed
conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Expert Working Group
engages in policy dialogue, consultations with officials and
civil society, fact-finding visits and research. South Sudan is
one of three countries selected for comparative analysis on
the problems associated with the proliferation of SALW and
challenges to arms control, and for identifying areas where
actions need to be taken by national and international
stakeholders to tackle those problems.
South Sudan gained its independence on 9 July 2011;
two years later, it became embroiled in a civil war.1 The
on-and-off five-year civil war fuelled an unprecedented
armed violence crisis and massive national and sub-national
insecurity. A peace agreement (the Agreement on the
Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan,
ARCSS) was signed in 2015 and ‘revitalised’ in 2018 after
repeated outbreaks of civil war. The agreement’s provisions
on security arrangements, security sector reform (SSR), and
demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) of
the armed forces are yet to be implemented.2 This legacy of
conflict has left SALW in the hands of civilians and former
combatants in the absence of capacities to control and
regulate their use.
brief shows:
Humanitarian aid is only partially accessible for internally displaced people and returning displaced
people face a myriad of problems.
The politics around internally displaced persons governance remains rooted in ethnically polarized
divisions resulting in gazetted Protection of Civilian Sites.
There is a seemingly deliberate policy of the state to create conflict and force civilians to seek refuge in
the neighbouring countries.
Regional power dynamics reflect the changing dynamics of the states in the region in hosting South
Sudanese refugees. While refugees contribute to the economies of the states in the region, the influx
of South Sudanese refugees is also putting immense pressure on resources.
The changing perception of displaced people in South Sudan and neighbouring Uganda. Displacement
is highly ethnic and politicized like never seen before, while cordial relations between South Sudan
refugees and host are strained.
lent history and had experienced two civil wars. The first civil war was waged
between 1955 and 1972 and the second civil war was waged between 1984
and 2005. The second civil war came to an end when the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development (IGAD),1 with the assistance of Troika, which is
comprised of the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and Norway,
mediated the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 9 January 2005. The
CPA provided for a referendum allowing South(ern) Sudan to choose whether
to remain united with the Sudan or become independent. After a successful
six-year interim period which ended in 2011, the South overwhelmingly voted
to separate from the Sudan in the same year. The South eventually became
independent on 9 July 2011. On 15 December 2013, two years after independ-
ence, South Sudan’s civil war started (De Vries and Schomerus, 2017). Since
independence, South Sudan remains embroiled in a senseless war and disarray.
The situation in South Sudan is “more than a breakdown of the rule of law and
order” (Mamdani, 2016). The violence is political. IGAD, and later IGAD
PLUS, again intervened as mediators and the Agreement for the Resolution of
the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS), including its stipulations on transitional
justice and the establishment of the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS),
was signed on 17 August 2015.
numerous international actors, including neighbouring countries—namely Sudan, Uganda,
Ethiopia and Kenya—the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African
Union (AU), the so-called Troika (United States, United Kingdom, and Norway), as well as
the EU, China and the UN.
Interviews with a cross-section of national stakeholders demonstrate a deep sense of
scepticism about the efficacy of peacemaking and peacebuilding initiatives in South Sudan
to date and indicate great apprehension that these initiatives have had any positive impact
for the lives of ordinary citizens. Peacemaking and peacebuilding have been externally-
led, top-down initiatives with IGAD, the Troika and the AU leading peace efforts. These
are marked by an inadequate commitment from South Sudanese political elites, and a
disconnect between those elites and ordinary citizens’ quest for justice. Seldom fully
participatory and holistic, the peace negotiations are limited to the top political leaders
and are very detached from the victims and communities who have borne the brunt of
the war.
Western countries’ reduced engagement in the peace process and the appeal of non-
Western actors through their political and economic links have created space for non-
Western countries’ initiatives and new approaches to peace. Regional powers — especially
Sudan and Uganda — played a key role in the 2018 South Sudan’s peace agreement,
managing to persuade South Sudanese political leaders to make concessions during critical
peace negotiations. Among the global powers, China—South Sudan’s main trading partner,
with a “no strings attached relationship” —has found a peacemaking role in South Sudan,
a country that continues to test China’s diplomatic leadership and political commitment.
While peace remains extremely fragile in South Sudan, the country is also caught in the
middle of inter-regional rivalries. Most notable are the disputes between Egypt, Ethiopia
and Sudan regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) hydropower project,
with South Sudanese leaders trying to maintain good relations with all the neighbouring
countries while also engaging in mediation efforts between them.
Despite positive shifts within national legislation on gender equality, political, social, and economic
power in South Sudanese society continues to reflect the deep patriarchy within society. The role of
women and men, reflecting the gender norms of their respective cultural milieus, in both resolving and
driving conflict is often not well understood by aid actors. Patterns of marginalisation, affecting both
women and men, stem from the colonial era and were largely present during the Second Sudan Civil
War. These patterns continue to intersect with conflict, leading to a build-up of toxic masculinities and
violence in South Sudan. Addressing gender inequality, poverty and violence using a conflict-sensitive
approach is vital for peace in South Sudan, as well as its long-term development. Aid actors should
ensure this process is inclusive, with particular attention paid to marginalised and disempowered
women and girls, men and boys.