The "peace versus justice" debate is not a new one to the world of international criminal justice, but is one that continues to be discussed with particular reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and their dealings in Uganda. Instead of choosing between peace and justice, the question should be: "which type of justice should the ICC pursue to contribute to peace?" The Court must overcome three barriers related to complementarity, distance, and listening to locals, to render the peace versus justice debate futile. The case study in Uganda provides a prime example of where once the Court broadens its approach to justice and peace, it can overcome the three dilemmas. This thesis concludes with specific recommendations the Court and international community should take to adopt a holistic approach to international criminal justice. This thesis will work to change people's perception of not only the ICC and its current dealings, but what justice and peace truly mean and the future of international criminal justice.