This thesis examines how the International Criminal Court (ICC) has impacted on the peace processes in Côte d' Ivoire, Kenya and Uganda. It explores how the prosecution of those who bear the greatest responsibility for the gravest crimes committed in these countries may have negatively or positively impacted on the process of making peace after prolonged civil war and postelection violence. The deployment of international justice mechanisms, such as the ICC may be justified on several grounds, including the argument that such involvement in conflict and post-conflict situations could assist in ending wars, and in promoting peace. But this belief has not been properly studied to understand whether international justice actually contributes positively or negatively to the peace process, and by what means any such relationship is activated. It is not yet clearly determined whether it is the retributive or restorative or the truth-telling functions of the Court that have had most impact on the peace process. Drawing upon interviews with national experts in these three countries, this study provides evidence-based responses to these questions, and reviews the controversies surrounding the involvement of international justice mechanisms in conflict and post-conflict situations. Relying on an analytical framework that is based on four variables: deterrence, victims' rights, reconciliation, and accountability to the law, it argues that the ICC's intervention has had multiple impacts on the situations across these countries, and that, despite some acknowledged arguments to the contrary, the ICC does promote peace processes through deterrence and the promotion of accountability to the law. However, there is minimal evidence that the ICC effectively contributes to peace processes in these countries through the promotion of reconciliation and victims' rights.