Crime of aggression
A crime of aggression or crime against peace is the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression using state military force. The definition and scope of the crime is controversial. The Rome Statute contains an exhaustive list of acts of aggression that can give rise to individual criminal responsibility, which include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports. In general, committing an act of aggression is a leadership crime that can only be committed by those with the power to shape a state's policy of aggression, as opposed to those who discharge it.
The philosophical basis for the wrongness of aggression is found in
It is generally accepted that the crime of aggression exists in
Aggression is one of the core crimes in
Background
Just war theory
World War I and interwar
After
Instead, the
World War II
Invasions during
Although there was not much in the way of
Case law
Almost all the trials for crimes against peace took place between November 1945 and November 1948,[27] though in some cases such as Romania they extended into 1949;[28] no one has been prosecuted for aggression before or since.[29] The courts faced the challenge, first of proving the criminality of acts of aggression, and secondly in tying such acts to individuals.[30]
War-responsibility trials in Finland
In 1939,
International Military Tribunal
The
planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression
The International Military Tribunal agreed with the prosecution that aggression was the gravest charge against the accused, stating in its judgement that because war in general is evil, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The planning of aggression was traced to Hitler's 1925 book
All 22 defendants were charged with crimes against peace, and 12 were convicted: Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Rosenberg, Wilhelm Frick, Walther Funk, Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Alfred Jodl, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Konstantin von Neurath.[41] The Nuremberg verdict was groundbreaking, establishing international criminal law and rejecting that act of state doctrine granted immunity for such serious crimes. The defendants were prosecuted even for acts that were legal under domestic law.[50] Opinion on the Nuremberg trials was divided. While some heralded it as a breakthrough in international law, crimes against peace specifically were subject to criticism as ex post facto law.[9][51]
Nuremberg Military Tribunals
The
Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
The main Nuremberg trial only considered the conspiracy to commit crimes against peace against Austria and Czechoslovakia, ruling that these relatively bloodless invasions were not wars of aggression. The slightly different wording of the offense in Law No. 10 allowed the invasions of these countries to be counted as substantive crimes against peace, and ultimately two defendants were convicted for their role in these invasions.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East
The Tokyo Charter defined crimes against peace as[39]
the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a declared or undeclared war of aggression, or a war in violation of international law, treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
The charge of aggression was central to the trial; 36 out of 55 counts were for crimes against peace.
The judgement summarizes the rise of Japanese militarism in the 1930s[62] leading up to the Conference of 11 August 1936 in which an expansionist policy was decided.[63] In 1937, Japan invaded China and in 1938–1939 it prepared for war with the Soviet Union.[64]
Romania
The 1947 treaty of peace with Romania obliged the country to apprehend and bring to trial people accused of "war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity".[65] Consequently, on 18 August 1947, Romania issued its "Law for the Prosecution and Punishment of Those Guilty of War Crimes or Crimes against Peace or Humanity".[66] At least 8 members of the wartime government of Ion Antonescu were sentenced in 1949 for crimes against peace, although one of them was rehabilitated by the Romanian Supreme Court on 26 October 1998. Another Romanian sentenced for crimes against peace - Gheron Netta, Ion Antonescu's last finance minister (1 April to 23 August, 1944) - was rehabilitated by the Supreme Court on 17 January 2000.[67][68]
Other trials
In 1946, former Japanese general Takashi Sakai was tried by a Chinese court for aggression, convicted, and executed.[72] Sakai appears to have been responsible for carrying out policies designed by others, which would put him outside the Rome Statute definition of aggression. According to jurist Roger S. Clark, he probably would not have been convicted for crimes against peace if tried at the Tokyo trial.[73]
Development in the United Nations
On 11 December 1946, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the criminality of "waging aggressive war" and stating that it was not just the aggression of the Axis powers that was a crime, but aggression in general.[74] Crimes against peace, devised by the Allies as a temporary solution, soon exhausted their usefulness and were abandoned by 1950. In the early 1950s, attempts to codify the crime of aggression in a "Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind" stalled.[51] After the 1940s, other crimes against international law, especially genocide and crimes against humanity, took priority over aggression.[7]
Maintenance of international peace and stability is a major function of the international order, and the Charter of the United Nations prohibits acts of aggression against other states. The prohibition of aggression is considered a peremptory norm in customary law, such that it is binding on states that are not members of the United Nations.[75] The most important provision in the UN Charter is Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."[76] "Force" refers to armed or military force, defined broadly: it can refer to conventional armies or irregular forces.[77] Although not explicitly stated in the UN Charter, the conventional view is that only state actors can commit aggression.[78] Although self-defense is an exception to the prohibition of force, claims of preventative and pre-emptive self-defense is largely rejected.[79]
On 14 December 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 elaborated on the prohibition of the use of force in the UN Charter. Although not legally binding, it influenced the Rome Statute's definition of aggression.[80] Resolution 3314 generally defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition."[81] It includes an incomplete list of acts of aggression and confirms that aggression are committed by one state against another, excluding non-state actors.[82] The resolution also refers to "crime of aggression" and makes it clear that there is individual criminal liability for aggression.[81]
Customary law
It is generally agreed by scholars of
Aggression requires both a mens rea and actus reus.[87] In terms of mens rea, Israeli jurist Yoram Dinstein argues that aggression can only be committed by a few high state officials who decide to wage aggressive war, and any subordinates who know in advance that their plans will be used to wage an aggressive war. Other jurists require a special intent, in the form of seeking to "achieve territorial gains, or to obtain economic advantages, or to interfere with the internal affairs" of the state that is aggressed.[88]
National law
After 1948, many states passed
Rome Statute
In 1998, at the Rome Conference that adopted the
Rome Statute definition of aggression
Under the Rome Statute, as amended in the 2010 Kampala Review Conference, the crime of aggression "means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations".[94][95] The criminal prosecution of aggression is limited to the most serious acts of state aggression;[96] non-state aggression, an even more disputed concept, is excluded.[97] The Rome Statute also restricts the crime of aggression to leaders of a state who have the power to determine a state's policy, excluding even high-ranking officials or generals who carry out a war of aggression.[96][98]
Thus, the crime of aggression is distinguished from the act of aggression, defined in the Rome Statute by the amendments of the 2010 Kampala Review Conference as follows:[94][95]
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, "act of aggression" means the use of
political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
- (a) The
territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of forceof the territory of another State or part thereof;- (b)
weaponsby a State against the territory of another State;- (c) The
armed forcesof another State;- (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
- (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
- (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
- (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or
mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.— Kampala Review Conference, 11 June 2010[94]
The list of prohibited acts is exhaustive.[99]
Jurisdiction
The International Criminal Court may only prosecute an act of aggression if the aggressing state has accepted its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, or following a referral from the
The ICC's jurisdiction over aggression was activated on 17 July 2018 after a decision by two-thirds of states parties.[96] As of 17 March 2022, 43 State Parties have ratified or acceded to the amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute.[102]
State- versus human-rights-centric approaches to aggression
Wars of aggression entail "legally unjustified killing that is otherwise anomalously non-criminal at both the international and national levels: the killing of combatants and proportionate collateral civilians through a manifestly illegal use of international force".
Philosopher Larry May maintains that serious aggressions, entailing loss of life, can be subsumed under the category of crimes against humanity. Conversely, a war cannot be justified by a minor violation of territorial integrity, and a violation of territorial integrity that does not involve serious human rights violations cannot be considered a criminal act of aggression. This conception of aggression could also allow for humanitarian intervention.[108]
The traditional view is that only decision-makers can be held criminally responsible for aggression, rather than lower-level military personnel and ordinary soldiers.[109] In recent times, however, there has been consideration as to whether soldiers who knowingly participate in a war of aggression incur moral or should incur legal liability.[110] Soldiers have a right and a responsibility to refuse to commit war crimes, but in general the right to refuse to fight an illegal war is not recognized.[111] International law scholar Tom Dannenbaum argues that soldiers should have a right not to fight in illegal wars, and those who refuse to do so should be recognized as refugees.[112]
One controversial issue is whether waging aggressive war inherently violates the right to life guaranteed in international human rights law. In 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that "States parties engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto article 6 [the right to life] of the" International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[113]
See also
References
- ^ a b c Sellars 2013, p. 165.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. xv.
- ^ May 2016, p. 273.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. xvi.
- ^ May 2016, p. 274.
- ^ May 2016, pp. 276–277.
- ^ a b May 2016, p. 278.
- ^ a b c May 2016, p. 279.
- ^ a b c d Sayapin 2014, p. xvii.
- ^ a b Sellars 2013, p. ix.
- ^ a b Sellars 2013, p. 1.
- ^ a b Sellars 2013, p. x.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 45.
- ^ Sellars 2013, pp. 22–23.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 28.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 23.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 40.
- ^ Sellars 2013, pp. 49–50.
- ^ Sellars 2013, pp. 51–52.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 53.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 57.
- ^ Sellars 2013, pp. 57–58.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. 67.
- ^ Sellars 2013, pp. 67–68.
- ^ Sellars 2013, pp. x, 150.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 38.
- ^ Sellars 2013, p. xii.
- ^ Henry F. Carey, Lexington Books, 2004, Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society, p. 75
- ^ Kemp 2010, pp. 209, 211.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 149.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, p. 432.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, p. 433.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, pp. 435–436.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, pp. 436–437.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, p. 438.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, p. 439.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, p. 440.
- ^ Tallgren 2013, p. 441.
- ^ a b Clark 2013, p. 392.
- ^ a b Sayapin 2014, p. 150.
- ^ a b Sayapin 2014, pp. 150–151.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 151–152.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 152–154.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 154–155.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 155–156.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 156–157.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 157–159.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 159.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 160.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 148.
- ^ a b Sellars 2013, p. xi.
- ^ a b Heller 2011, p. 179.
- ^ Heller 2011, pp. 180–181.
- ^ Heller 2011, pp. 179, 181, 186, 201.
- ^ Heller 2011, pp. 201–202.
- ^ Cohen & Totani 2020, pp. 69, 71.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 161.
- ^ Cohen & Totani 2020, p. 70.
- ^ Cohen & Totani 2020, pp. 72–73.
- ^ Cohen & Totani 2020, p. 75.
- ^ Cohen & Totani 2020, p. 74.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 163–165.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 166.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 167.
- ^ United States, Department of State, 1968, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949: Multilateral, 1946-1949, p. 405
- ^ Dennis Deletant, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1999, Communist Terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965, p. 131
- ^ Henry F. Carey, Lexington Books, 2004, Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society, p. 75
- ^ David Singer, American Jewish Committee, 2001, American Jewish Year Book 2001, Volume 101, p. 430
- ^ Drumbl 2013, p. 411.
- ^ Drumbl 2013, p. 423.
- ^ Drumbl 2013, p. 427.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 387, 390.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 396–397.
- ^ Kemp 2010, p. 205.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 76.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 77.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 80–81.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 82–83.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 114–116.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. 104.
- ^ a b Sayapin 2014, p. 105.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, pp. 105–106.
- ^ Kemp 2010, pp. 202, 207.
- ^ Kemp 2010, pp. 207–208.
- ^ Kemp 2010, pp. 209–210.
- ^ Kemp 2010, p. 211.
- ^ Kemp 2010, p. 210.
- ^ Kemp 2010, p. 212.
- ^ Sayapin 2014, p. xviii.
- ^ a b Kemp 2010, p. 194.
- ^ Scharf, Michael P. (2012). "Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression". Harvard International Law Journal. 53: 357.
- ^ "Resolution RC/Res.6 !" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 March 2012. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
- ^ Soler 2019, p. 89.
- ^ a b c "Rome statute of the International Criminal Court – Rome, 17 July 1998 – Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Kampala, 11 June 2010 – Adoption of Amendments on the Crime of Aggression" (PDF). United Nations. 30 November 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 April 2022. Retrieved 9 August 2022.
- ^ a b Clark 2013, p. 393.
- ^ a b c Soler 2019, p. 104.
- ^ a b May 2016, p. 284.
- ^ Clark 2013, pp. 397–398.
- ^ Soler 2019, pp. 104–105.
- ^ "Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter?". Just Security. 19 December 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
- ^ Soler 2019, p. 105.
- United Nations Treaty Collection. 17 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
- ^ a b Dannenbaum 2018, p. 861.
- ^ a b Dannenbaum 2018, p. 859.
- ^ Dannenbaum 2018, p. 860.
- ^ Dannenbaum 2018, p. 862.
- ^ Dannenbaum 2018, pp. 861–862.
- ^ May 2016, pp. 279–280.
- ^ Dannenbaum 2018, p. 864.
- ^ May 2016, p. 283.
- ^ Dannenbaum 2018, pp. 865, 867.
- ^ Dannenbaum 2018, pp. 868, 870.
- ISBN 978-1-108-49478-6.
Sources
- Clark, Roger S. (2013). "The Crime of Aggression: From the Trial of Takashi Sakai, August 1946, to the Kampala Review Conference on the ICC in 2010". The Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trials. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967114-4.
- Cohen, David; Totani, Yuma (2020). The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal: Law, History, and Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-82068-4.
- Dannenbaum, Tom (2018). "The Criminalization of Aggression and Soldiers' Rights". European Journal of International Law. 29 (3): 859–886. .
- Drumbl, Mark A. (2013). "'Germans are the Lords and Poles are the Servants': The Trial of Arthur Greiser in Poland, 1946". The Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trials. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967114-4.
- Heller, Kevin Jon (2011). The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-955431-7.
- Kemp, Gerhard (2010). Individual Criminal Liability for the International Crime of Aggression. Intersentia. ISBN 978-94-000-0013-1.
- May, Larry (2016). "Just War Theory and the Crime of Aggression". In Kreß, Claus; Barriga, Stefan (eds.). The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press. pp. 273–286. ISBN 978-1-107-01526-5.
- Sayapin, Sergey (2014). The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law: Historical Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State. ISBN 978-90-6704-927-6.
- Sellars, Kirsten (2013). 'Crimes Against Peace' and International Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-02884-5.
- Soler, Christopher (2019). The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press. ISBN 978-94-6265-335-1.
- Tallgren, Immi (2013). "The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial in 1945–6: The Limits of Ad Hoc Criminal Justice?". The Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trials. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967114-4.
Further reading
- Bock, Stefanie; Conze, Eckart (2021). Rethinking the Crime of Aggression: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. T.M.C. Asser Press. ISBN 978-94-6265-467-9.
- Dannenbaum, Tom (2018). The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-16918-0.
- Grzebyk, Patrycja (2013). Criminal Responsibility for the Crime of Aggression. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-00120-8.
- Jia, Bing Bing (2015). "The Crime of Aggression as Custom and the Mechanisms for Determining Acts of Aggression". American Journal of International Law. 109 (3): 569–582. S2CID 147754466.
- McDougall, Carrie (2021). The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-86476-3.
- Politi, Mauro (2017). The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-21829-0.
External links
- Resolution RC/Res.6 – Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression
- Review Conference – Official Site of the Assembly of States Parties
- Crime of Aggression – Official Site of the Assembly of States Parties
- UN Treaty Collection (UTC) – Status of Acceptance, Ratification