Sanctions vs. Diplomacy: The Legal Path to Peace in the DRC
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has long grappled with internal conflicts that threaten the stability and security of its people. One of the most prominent contemporary armed groups in the region is the March 23 Movement (M23). Born out of complex local grievances and regional dynamics, M23 remains a source of persistent conflict in the eastern DRC, particularly in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), renewed clashes in 2022 led to the displacement of over 300,000 people in North Kivu alone, demonstrating the magnitude of the crisis.
The international community, African regional bodies, and the Congolese government have all considered various strategies to address this turmoil. One of the recurring policy tools is the imposition of sanctions under international law—aimed at pressuring armed groups, their financiers, and any supportive state actors to cease hostilities and return to dialogue. However, critics question whether sanctions alone can effectively prevent an escalation of conflict. We examine the potential utility of sanctions within the existing legal frameworks, their efficacy, and whether a more robust diplomatic approach could yield better, longer-lasting peace in the eastern DRC. In doing so, we will ground our discussion in relevant laws, constitutional provisions, and articles from international treaties, presenting facts, figures, and an evidence-based viewpoint.
Historical Context of the M23 Conflict
1. Origins of M23
M23 emerged in 2012 when former members of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP) rebel group claimed the Congolese government had reneged on the 23 March 2009 peace deal (hence the name “M23”). This agreement was intended to integrate former combatants into the Congolese national army (FARDC) and public institutions. Its collapse set the stage for renewed hostilities, leading to multiple humanitarian crises, widespread insecurity, and violations of international humanitarian law.
2. Geopolitical Interests and Regional Tensions
The Great Lakes region has historically been marred by interstate tensions. According to BBC News reports, some neighbouring countries have been accused of supporting armed groups in eastern DRC to protect their economic and security interests. This perpetuates an environment of distrust, thereby complicating the efficacy of any peace measure, including sanctions.
3. Humanitarian Consequences
The humanitarian toll has been immense. Al Jazeera estimates that over 5 million people have been internally displaced in the DRC over the past decade, with a significant portion attributed to conflicts in the east. Civilians face gross violations of human rights, including forced recruitment by rebel forces, sexual and gender-based violence, and destruction of property, making conflict resolution an urgent humanitarian priority.
Legal Framework Governing International Sanctions
To determine the legitimacy and effectiveness of sanctions as a diplomatic tool in the DRC, it is essential to understand the legal foundations that guide their imposition and enforcement.
1. Article 41 of the United Nations Charter
Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council is empowered to decide on measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 allows for non-military measures—commonly known as sanctions—ranging from complete or partial interruption of economic relations to severance of diplomatic ties. These sanctions must be proportional, targeted, and intended to induce compliance with international norms and Security Council resolutions.
2. UN Security Council Resolutions on the DRC
The DRC has been subject to multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 1533 (2004) first established an arms embargo on armed groups in the eastern DRC, including M23’s precursors. This was followed by Resolution 2293 (2016), which reinforced the sanctions regime, applying travel bans and asset freezes on individuals and entities violating the arms embargo or supporting armed groups. These resolutions also established monitoring groups to investigate violations and recommend additional measures.
3. Regional Agreements and African Union Frameworks
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) obligates States to protect human rights and ensure peace and stability in the region (Article 23).
• The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance underscores the need for States to adhere to democratic principles, rule of law, and conflict prevention. Articles 44 and 45 specifically call for collaboration in peace and security matters, which can extend to imposing sanctions on perpetrators of unconstitutional changes of government or massive violations of human rights.
• The Constitutive Act of the African Union (Article 4(h)) confers the Union the right to intervene in Member States in grave circumstances such as war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. While not always as direct as the UN Security Council mechanisms, these AU principles shape how African States can collaboratively impose or support targeted sanctions.
4. Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2006)
The DRC’s Constitution emphasises the indivisibility of the nation, the protection of human rights, and national sovereignty. Article 52 of the Constitution explicitly recognises the role of the State in maintaining peace and security. While it does not outline specific provisions for sanctions, it provides legitimacy for the government to engage with international institutions to seek measures—like sanctions—that could restore stability when national security is compromised.
Efficacy and Impact of Sanctions
1. Success Stories
• Diplomatic Pressure and Freeze of Assets: A prime example is the freezing of assets belonging to individuals orchestrating the flow of arms. In 2021, the UN Group of Experts on the DRC found that sanctioned individuals faced significant hurdles in moving finances, thereby disrupting the logistical supply chains essential to sustaining armed operations.
• Restriction on Travel: Travel bans under UN Security Council Resolutions discourage diplomacy by armed group leaders who exploit foreign safe havens. By limiting their mobility, sanctions can effectively reduce the avenues for garnering external support.
2. Potential Pitfalls
• Unintended Economic Consequences: Broad economic sanctions, if poorly targeted, can harm civilians more than the intended targets. While UN sanctions on the DRC are generally targeted—aimed at freezing assets of specific individuals or banning arms deals—any misapplication or overreach could disrupt legitimate trade and economic activities, exacerbating poverty in regions already crippled by conflict.
• Risk of Sanction Evasion: Some armed groups circumvent sanctions by establishing illicit revenue streams through mineral trafficking, taxation of local populations, and cross-border smuggling. The porous nature of DRC’s eastern borders facilitates evasion. According to Global Witness, illegal exploitation of gold, coltan, and cassiterite remains a major funding source for multiple rebel factions, including offshoots related to M23.
• Limited Long-Term Effectiveness: Sanctions alone, without robust local and regional dialogue, often fail to address the underlying grievances—such as lack of political representation, economic marginalisation, or ethnic tensions—that fuel rebel insurgencies.
A More Robust Diplomatic Approach
While sanctions can apply pressure, they are but one part of a broader diplomatic and legal strategy.
1. Mediation and Regional Diplomacy
Diplomatic efforts through regional bodies such as the East African Community (EAC) and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) have yielded some progress. The Nairobi Process (2022), facilitated by the EAC, brought together Congolese authorities and various armed groups. Although M23’s involvement has been sporadic, continuing this dialogue—backed by strong legal commitments and enforcement mechanisms—could create sustainable peace and address root causes.
2. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions
Establishing or empowering existing truth and reconciliation frameworks can help mend the fractured relationship between the government, local communities, and rebel groups. Provisions under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) underscore accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Complementary justice mechanisms in the DRC would offer a platform for victims’ voices, reparations, and community-led initiatives for peace.
3. Security Sector Reforms (SSR)
At the heart of many insurgencies in the DRC lies the populace’s distrust of security forces. Reforms that professionalise the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC) and integrate vetted ex-combatants under transparent processes can potentially mitigate future rebellions. By combining sanctions with SSR—ensuring better command, control, and accountability—future uprisings might be prevented or swiftly contained.
4. Economic and Social Development
Poverty, poor infrastructure, and lack of public services feed the cycle of violence. A more robust diplomatic approach must address socio-economic grievances. For instance, building roads, healthcare facilities, and schools in historically neglected areas can erode the popularity of armed groups. Regional and international partners, including the World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB), can strengthen their investments in peace-building initiatives, conditional upon tangible progress in stabilisation efforts.
Conclusion: A Path Forward with Compassion and Resolve
The conflict in eastern DRC, personified by the resurgence of M23, is not a simple power struggle; it is a tragic saga of economic hardship, ethnic tensions, and governance challenges. Sanctions, grounded in Article 41 of the UN Charter and enforced through specific UN Security Council Resolutions (e.g., 1533 and 2293), can create pressure by cutting off resources and support to rebel factions. Such measures, if carefully targeted, serve as an important instrument in the toolbox of conflict resolution. They can limit the operational capacity of armed groups, hold perpetrators accountable, and incentivise them to participate in peace talks.
Nevertheless, sanctions alone are rarely a panacea. For them to be effective, a robust diplomatic framework must simultaneously address underlying grievances, ensure regional cooperation, and provide social and economic support to vulnerable populations. This multi-pronged approach includes mediation efforts, truth and reconciliation commissions, security sector reforms, and development projects aimed at long-term stability.
In telling the story of the DRC, it is impossible to ignore the deep suffering of millions of ordinary men, women, and children. Families torn apart by violence, children separated from their parents, and entire communities forced to flee their homes in search of safety—these are not mere statistics but real human tragedies. As we weigh policy tools like sanctions, we must remember the immense human cost of inaction or ineffective strategies.
A more holistic, empathetic approach—one that combines the legal instruments of sanctions with earnest diplomacy, robust regional engagement, and concrete investments in human development—offers hope for the Congolese people. The evolving peace efforts must stand on a foundation of justice, guided by national and international law, and fuelled by genuine compassion for those who have endured immeasurable hardship. Let us remain curious about new solutions, push for comprehensive dialogue, and persistently advocate for the rights and dignity of the Congolese people. In doing so, the international community and regional bodies can stand together with the DRC to craft a future where hope triumphs over despair and sustainable peace becomes an attainable reality.
Aric Jabari is the Editorial Director at the Sixteenth Council
