Abstract This article makes a contribution to existing literature by developing a pluralist account for international criminal justice, specifically where there are Traditional Justice Mechanisms (TJMs) at play. This account has the effect of challenging the dominant assumption that TJMs have no place in international criminal justice, in particular, where the option to conduct criminal prosecution is considered. Subsequent to the background section, the second section engages with literature on legal pluralism in international criminal justice. This review constitutes an analytical framework for evaluating the ways in which TJMs can interact with other systems of justice. The third section provides an overview of the Ugandan conflict with a view to demonstrating the multiple approaches invoked in addressing the effects of the conflict in Uganda. The fourth section gives an overview of the scope and nature of TJMs while the fifth section engages with the criticisms leveled against TJMs. In light of the discussion in the fifth section, it is recommended that if TJMs in Uganda are to be properly contextualized and understood, there is a need to interpret the Juba Peace Agreement through a legal pluralism lens. The sixth section engages with the practical ways that TJMs can play a role in criminal proceedings before the ICC and national courts. Overall, the argument advanced is that where the option to prosecute is considered by the ICC, TJMs should, on a case by case basis, play a role within the framework of international criminal justice. Rather than choosing between TJMs and international criminal justice, emphasis should be placed on how TJMs and international criminal justice complement each other.

中文翻译：

---

法律多元化作为了解 TJMS 在国际刑事司法中的作用和地位的镜头

摘要 本文通过对国际刑事司法的多元解释，特别是在传统司法机制 (TJM) 发挥作用的情况下，对现有文献做出了贡献。这种说法具有质疑 TJMs 在国际刑事司法中没有地位的主要假设的效果，特别是在考虑进行刑事起诉的选择时。在背景部分之后，第二部分涉及有关国际刑事司法中法律多元化的文献。该审查构成了一个分析框架，用于评估 TJM 与其他司法系统互动的方式。第三部分概述了乌干达冲突，以展示在解决乌干达冲突影响时所采用的多种方法。第四部分概述了 TJM 的范围和性质，而第五部分则涉及对 TJM 的批评。根据第五部分的讨论，建议如果要正确地将乌干达的 TJMs 置于背景下并加以理解，则需要通过法律多元化的视角来解释《朱巴和平协议》。第六部分介绍了 TJM 可以在国际刑事法院和国家法院的刑事诉讼中发挥作用的实际方式。总体而言，提出的论点是，在国际刑事法院考虑起诉选项的情况下，TJM 应根据具体情况在国际刑事司法框架内发挥作用。与其在 TJM 和国际刑事司法之间做出选择，