Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Yearbook of International Law |
Last Updated: 7 February 2019
THE THRESHOLD IN THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION
James
Potter[∗]
I. GENERAL
This paper examines the threshold clause in the current proposed
definition of the crime of aggression, which limits the scope of
the proposed
crime to involvement in acts of aggression that constitute a manifest violation
of the Charter of the United
Nations.[1] It traces the historical
development of this aspect of the definition, from its roots in the Nuremberg
Charter’s[2] criminalisation of
wars of aggression, and looks at how this approach evolved through the work of
the International Law Commission,
the Preparatory Commission for the
International Criminal Court and the Special Working Group on the Crime of
Aggression (‘SWGCA’)
to the current
definition,[3] which broadens the
definition of the crime to include involvement other acts of aggression, but
uses the threshold clause to limit
the scope of the crime to the most serious
cases.
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – THE NUREMBERG CHARTER
As is well known, an agreement between the victorious Allied powers after
the Second World War established the Nuremberg Tribunal
and its charter
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Nuremberg
Charter’).[4] The Nuremberg
Charter, in addition to war crimes and crimes against humanity, criminalised
‘crimes against peace’, which
were defined as ‘planning,
preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation
of international
treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a
common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing’,[5] but did not
define the term ‘war of aggression’.
As Clark has pointed out,
delegates to the London Conference which negotiated the Nuremberg Charter
considered including more precise
language, but ultimately did not proceed down
this path.[6] During the negotiations
at the London Conference, the US representative, Justice Robert H. Jackson,
proposed a list of state acts
which would result in a state being considered an
‘aggressor’, based on a treaty concluded by the Soviet Union and
others
in 1933.[7] This proposal was
ultimately not agreed and the definition was left without a detailed list of
acts that would constitute a war
of
aggression.[8]
The
judgment of the Nuremberg
Tribunal[9] sheds little further
light on what state conduct would amount to a war of aggression, and whether
this term is intended to encompass
a different range of conduct than an
‘act’ of aggression. However, a careful reading of the Nuremberg
Judgment, and
in particular the treatment of the actions of Nazi Germany against
Austria, suggests that the Tribunal did intend to distinguish
between acts of
aggression that would amount to a ‘war of aggression’ and other acts
of aggression.
The Tribunal describes how Austria was seized by Germany in
March 1938, with the threat of invasion but without any actual armed
conflict,[10] and acquitted the
defendant Kaltenbrunner, who participated in the annexation of Austria but not
other Nazi acts of aggression, of
participation in a common plan or conspiracy
to commit crimes against peace. It held that
[t]here is no evidence connecting Kaltenbrunner with plans to wage aggressive
war on any other front. The Anschluss, although it
was an aggressive act, is
not charged as an aggressive war, and the evidence against Kaltenbrunner under
Count One does not, in the
opinion of the Tribunal, show his direct
participation in any plan to wage such a
war.[11]
This indicates that
the Tribunal distinguished between an ‘aggressive act’ and other
acts amounting to aggressive war,
and considered that participation in the
former should not be criminalised.
A broader approach was taken by Control
Council Law No. 10,[12] which was
passed by Allied occupying powers to try groups of defendants other than the
major Nazi leaders. In addition to aggressive
war, Control Council Law No. 10
included in the definition of crimes against peace ‘[i]nitiation of
invasions of other countries’.
As a result of this change, the lack of
armed resistance in the invasion of Austria was not seen as important in the
Ministries Case[13], in which
the Tribunal tried a number of high-ranking officials from German Reich
ministries for crimes including crimes against
peace and was prepared to find
several defendants guilty as a result of their involvement in Nazi aggression
against Austria as a
crime against peace. But just as a war of aggression
remained undefined in the Nuremberg Judgment, there was no definition of what
would constitute an ‘invasion’ for the purposes of a definition of
the crime of aggression.
This lack of clarity of the term ‘war of
aggression’ in the Nuremberg jurisprudence has led some commentators to
argue
that the Tribunal avoided the task of defining
aggression.[14]
Other commentators have argued that the term ‘war of aggression’ was
intended to be synonymous with the term ‘act
of aggression’.
Dascalopoulou-Livada, for example, argues that the criminalisation of
‘invasions’ in addition to
a ‘war of aggression’ in
Control Council Law No. 10 ‘proves that there is no irrefutable truth in
the assertion
that at Nuremberg the crime was perceived and qualified only as
“war of aggression”’, and that no distinction can
be made
between the terms ‘war of aggression’ and
‘aggression’.[15]
It
is perhaps putting it too strongly to argue that there was no distinction
intended between the two terms. It seems clear from
the acquittal of
Kaltenbrunner that the Nuremberg Tribunal felt that the Nuremberg Charter only
criminalised certain acts of aggression,
and that individual participation in
some acts of aggression fell short of some threshold required to attract
criminal liability.
This point remains true despite the extension of criminal
liability to participation in ‘invasions’ in Control Council
Law No.
10. It can be admitted however, that there is little guidance in the Nuremberg
jurisprudence as to what will constitute
a war of aggression or an
‘invasion’.
This lack of clarity in the Nuremberg jurisprudence
is perhaps understandable, given that the Nazi military action resulted in Nazi
occupation of most of Europe. The acts of Nazi Germany involved full-scale
invasions of numerous states, and resulted in long term
occupation or annexation
of the territory of those states. The definitions in the Nuremberg Charter and
Control Council Law No.
10, with their emphasis on a war of aggression or
invasion of other countries, were sufficient to cover these factual
circumstances.
The Soviet delegate to the London Conference made this point
rather bluntly in arguing that his primary concern was to punish Nazi
criminals
rather than define the crime under international law for future
cases.[16] Although other delegates
argued for a more precise definition, the compromise definition agreed upon by
the London Conference was
sufficient to encompass the acts of Nazi Germany but
did not provide a definition for the future.
The task facing states
negotiating the definition of the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute,
however, is a different one –
to agree on a definition capable of applying
to all possible future cases of aggression.
III. WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION
In the aftermath of the Second World War, following the Nuremberg
Judgment, the International Law Commission (ILC) was tasked to formulate
the
principles of international law recognised in the Nuremberg Charter and
judgment, and prepare a draft code of offences against
the peace and security of
mankind.[17] The first draft code
was submitted to the General Assembly in
1951.[18] The ILC took a different
approach to aggression in Article 2 of the draft code, stating that
any act of aggression, including the employment by the authorities of a State
of armed force against another State for any purpose
other than national or
collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a
competent organ of the United
Nations.[19]
The Tribunal
went on to note that ‘every act of aggression constitutes a crime under
this paragraph but that no attempt was
made to enumerate such acts
exhaustively.’[20] This seems
to go a lot further than Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter, by providing that
every act of aggression would constitute
a crime.
This approach persisted in
the 1991 draft code, when Article 15 provided that ‘an individual who
commits or orders the commission
of an act of aggression, shall, on conviction
thereof, be sentenced...’.[21]
Comments received from states on the draft code questioned this aspect of the
draft code. In particular, Australia noted that acts
of aggression short of war
would be illegal and result in state responsibility for the illegality,
‘it does not follow that
the international community is willing to
recognize that individuals in the delictual state are guilty of international
crimes’.[22]
In its
response, the ILC downplayed the distinction between these two categories of
acts of aggression, noting that there were some
acts of aggression that would
fall short of war but were nonetheless serious enough to constitute
crimes.[23] Even if
Australia’s point was not fully addressed by the ILC, the ILC’s
response does represent an acknowledgment that
only certain acts of aggression
reaching a certain threshold should be criminalised. Thus, Article 16 of the
1996 draft code, took
a similar approach as the 1991 draft code, but the
ILC’s commentary noted that individual criminal liability would only arise
for ‘sufficiently serious
violations’.[24] What the ILC
considered ‘sufficiently serious’ is not explained, and it also
seems strange that such a crucial point
was only mentioned in the commentary and
not addressed in the article itself, which on its face criminalised all acts of
aggression.
The approach taken in General Assembly Resolution 3314 to this
point should also be noted. Adopted in 1974 after many years of negotiations,
Resolution 3314 sets out a definition of
aggression.[25] Article 5(2) of
that Resolution reverts back to the approach taken by the Nuremberg Charter,
noting that ‘[a] war of aggression
is a crime against international
peace’. In other words, despite the broader range of acts of aggression
defined in the other
articles, the Resolution makes clear that only a war of
aggression can give rise to criminal responsibility.
Both General Assembly
Resolution 3314 and the ILC’s 1996 draft code therefore recognise that
only some acts of aggression committed
by a state will involve individual
criminal liability.
IV. THE EMERGENCE OF THE THRESHOLD CLAUSE – THE GERMAN PROPOSALS IN THE PREPARATORY COMMISSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The different approaches to criminalisation of aggression continued in
proposals made in the Preparatory Commission of the International
Criminal Court
(‘PrepCom’). For example, the Russian proposal put forward to
PrepCom in 1999 was to criminalise ‘planning,
preparing, initiating,
carrying out a war of
aggression’.[26] This
approach is clearly drawn from the Nuremberg jurisprudence.
A German
proposal, which appears to be the origin of the threshold language, took a
slightly different approach. Rather than referring
to a ‘war of
aggression’, it proposed to criminalise involvement in
an armed attack directed by a State against the territorial integrity or
political independence of another State when this armed attack
was undertaken in
manifest contravention of the Charter of the United Nations with the object or
result of establishing a military
occupation of, or annexing, the territory of
such other State or part thereof by armed forces of the attacking
State.[27]
The German
proposal thus contained a more general description of a State use of force which
would prima facie result in individual criminal liability, but limited
the applicability of this general description by two distinct qualifiers. The
first qualifier was through the use of the threshold language providing that the
use of force must be ‘undertaken in manifest
contravention of the Charter
of the United Nations’. The second qualifier looked at the result of the
armed attack, that is,
it limited the crime to involvement in acts of aggression
that resulted in the occupation or annexation of another State’s
territory
by armed forces.
In explaining this proposal, the German discussion paper
notes that the definition should focus on the ‘obvious and indisputable
cases’, citing the aggressions committed by Hitler and the invasion and
annexation of Kuwait on the orders of Saddam Hussein
in August 1990. This was
seen as of the utmost importance, to avoid the definition leading to possible
frivolous political accusations,
and to avoid the definition ‘negatively
affect[ing] the legitimate use of armed force in conformity with the Charter of
the
United Nations’.[28]
A
subsequent German discussion paper in 2000 elaborated somewhat on this
reasoning. It explained that the crime should cover attempts
to ‘take
over’ or to destroy another state or parts thereof ‘with the
assembled and well-prepared power of its
entire military apparatus’. The
paper noted that such attacks would be ‘clearly without any justification
under international
law’. Moreover, they would share a number of
characteristics. They would be of a particular magnitude and dimension and
‘of
a frightening gravity and intensity’, would lead to ‘the
most serious consequences’ such as extensive loss of life
or destruction
and would ‘pursue objectives unacceptable to the international community
as a whole, such as annexation, mass
destruction, annihilation, deportation or
forcible transfer of the population.’ The paper noted that such armed
attacks would
be ‘in manifest violation of the Charter of the United
Nations’. Germany considered that the international instruments
dating
back to the Nuremberg Charter suggested
a narrow concept of the crime of aggression, fully in line with what has been
identified, in essence, as an aggressive, large-scale
armed attack on the
territorial integrity of another State, clearly without justification under
international law.[29]
The
German proposal can be seen as an attempt to move away from the Nuremberg
language of ‘wars of aggression’ or ‘invasions’
towards
a definition that referred to ‘acts of
aggression’.[30] To avoid
criminalising any and every act of aggression and maintain consistency with
historical precedents, the German proposal
limited individual criminal liability
to those acts which met the two qualifiers, being firstly the threshold language
of a ‘manifest
violation’, based on the gravity and indisputably
illegal nature of the act of aggression and secondly, the object or result
of
the act of aggression.
V. THE WORK OF THE SPECIAL WORKING GROUP ON THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION
Of these qualifiers, only the first, the threshold language, remains in
the current draft of the definition of aggression developed
by the SWGCA. The
language has changed somewhat, referring to a ‘manifest violation’
instead of a ‘manifest contravention’
and also providing that the
manifest nature of the violation is determined by its ‘character, gravity
and scale’.
The second qualifier in the original German proposal,
referring to the object or result of the act of aggression, does not appear
in
the current draft. Similar language to the second qualifier was retained in the
2002 Chairman’s paper on proposals for
the crime of aggression, which
represented the output of the PrepCom’s work on
aggression.[31] This paper
contained a threshold clause identical to the current draft, except for the use
of the word ‘flagrant’ instead
of ‘manifest’, but also
proposed three options based on the second qualifier in the German
proposal.[32]
Option two in the
2002 Chairman’s paper was to add the words:
and amounts to a war of aggression or constitutes an act which has the object
or the result of establishing a military occupation
of, or annexing, the
territory of another State or part
thereof.[33]
This option
would have closely resembled the German proposal by limiting acts of aggression
attracting criminal liability by reference
to the object or result of the act.
Option one was similar to Option two, but differed in that acts of aggression
with the object
of military occupation or annexation were listed as examples of
acts of aggression, leaving open the possibility that other acts
of aggression
may also qualify.
Option three was to do ‘neither of the above’.
This option ultimately prevailed in subsequent meetings of the SWGCA.
In
discussions in the Princeton inter-sessional meeting in June 2006, the
predominant view was that limiting the crime of aggression
to ‘aggressive
wars’ by including the reference to a war of aggression would be too
restrictive.[34]
Similarly, a preference for not including a reference to the object or result of
the aggression being to establish a military occupation
or annexation
emerged.[35]
In the SWGCA
discussions in January-February 2007, a similar approach was taken. Some
support was expressed for language referring
to the ‘war of
aggression’ to utilise the Nuremberg precedent, but other delegations felt
that this was too restrictive
and ‘closely linked to the modalities of
warfare in World War II and would unduly limit the scope of the crime of
aggression’.[36]
As a result, the second qualifier proposed by the 1999 German proposal was
removed from the current definition (although it is still
referred to in a
footnote).
In the author’s view, this approach is appropriate. As
delegates in the SWGCA recognised, the modalities of warfare have changed
since
the Second World War. An act of aggression may no longer take the form of a
conventional war, and may not have the object
of annexation or occupation of a
state, but may nonetheless have such serious consequences that it warrants
criminal liability for
those leaders committing it. For example, a nuclear
strike on a State’s major cities would not result in annexation or
occupation
of a state’s territory, and a one-off attack may arguably not
constitute a ‘war’. Such an attack would, however,
appear to meet
the key characteristics described in the German paper of those acts worthy of
criminalisation, due to the mass destruction
and loss of life. A similar point
could be made in relation to other examples such as aerial bombardment or use of
ballistic missiles
or weapons of mass destruction. By moving away from use of
the term ‘aggressive wars’ or use of the second qualifier
in the
German proposal relating to the object or result of the act of aggression, such
uses of force are potentially encompassed
within the crime of
aggression.[37]
However, there is
also a strong argument that international law should only criminalise those acts
which are clearly criminal. The
Charter of the United Nations allows the use of
force in cases of self-defence or where authorised by the Security Council, but
the
boundaries of what is permitted are not always clear. In the case of
self-defence for example, the requirements of proportionality
and imminence must
be satisfied. Use of force by a state which does not meet these requirements
may constitute an act of aggression.
But is it acceptable to impose criminal
liability on a leader who takes into account these requirements and commits a
state to a
certain use of force, if the Court, analysing the situation ex
post facto, takes a different interpretation of international law? As the
Rome Statute is intended to try those crimes which are of most serious
concern
to humanity as a whole,[38] the
author submits that such cases should not be criminalised. Likewise, cases
which are small in scale, such as a minor border
skirmish, may not be of
sufficient scale to warrant criminal prosecution by the Court.
To avoid
criminalising such acts of aggression, the role of the threshold clause in
limiting the crime to acts which reach the threshold
of a certain character,
gravity and scale and constitute a ‘manifest violation’ of the
Charter of the United Nations
then becomes vital.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE THRESHOLD CLAUSE IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION
It is clear from the German discussion paper that the German proposal was
intended to limit criminalisation of involvement in acts
of aggression to those
state acts which reached a certain threshold of seriousness both in terms of the
gravity and scale of the
act and the character of the act as one clearly without
justification under international law. This approach is pursued in the current
draft through the use of the threshold clause by limiting criminalisation to an
act of aggression ‘which, by its character,
gravity and scale, constitutes
a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations’.
In the
author’s view, the plain meaning of the threshold clause achieves the
intent of the German proposal by excluding both
small-scale cases such as minor
border skirmishes, but also by excluding cases where the legality of the state
act is uncertain.
A ‘manifest’ violation is a violation which is
‘clear’ or ‘obvious’. The words ‘by its
character, gravity and scale’ make clear that the obvious nature of the
violation refers not only to the size or magnitude
of the act (scale), the
seriousness of its consequences (gravity) but also to its character.
Although
the term ‘character’ is not defined, it seems clear that this would
include the legal character of the state
act. A use of force by a state may be
large in scale and have serious consequences, but where such use of force is
permitted by
international law (for example in self defence), it will not have
the ‘character’ of a violation of the Charter of the
United Nations.
Uses of force which are not clearly or obviously outside the scope of what is
permitted under international law will
not be acts which by their character
constitute a manifest violation of the Charter, and will be excluded by the
threshold clause.
This interpretation, based on the plain meaning of the
proposed language, is confirmed by the intention of the original German proposal
from which the language originated, which was aimed at ‘obvious and
indisputable’ cases that were ‘clearly without
justification under
international law’. The intention that such acts are excluded is also
reflected in the records of the
SWGCA which refers to the views of participants
supporting the threshold clause that it would exclude ‘borderline
cases’.[39]
Although the
term ‘borderline’ is not elaborated upon, in the author’s
view, the reference to exclusion of ‘borderline’
cases in the
reports of the SWGCA is intended also to refer to cases of uncertain legality.
This can be seen by considering other
cases which the ‘manifest
violation’ requirement excludes, such as small-scale cases. It is not
correct to say that
inclusion of the threshold clause excludes borderline cases
– it excludes cases which are of insufficient scale to warrant
criminalisation. Including the threshold clause creates the potential
for borderline cases in respect of scale, by excluding small-scale cases and
creating the possibility that certain cases may or may
not be considered
‘small-scale’. When the SWGCA refers to the threshold clause
excluding ‘borderline’ cases,
it must instead refer to cases which
may or may not constitute an act of aggression, i.e. uses of force which are
arguably permissible
under international law.
This interpretation is
confirmed elsewhere in the records of the SWGCA, where it refers to exclusion of
cases ‘where there might
be a degree of uncertainty (legality of the
action)’[40] or cases
‘falling within a grey
area’.[41]
The approach put
forward in respect of the
elements[42] of the crime at the
June 2009 inter-sessional meeting of states negotiating the crime of aggression
confirms this intention. The
Chair’s paper on elements, proposed a mental
element for the crime of aggression of knowledge of factual circumstances which
establish that the state act is an act of aggression and a manifest violation of
the Charter, as opposed to a mental element requiring
knowledge of law. The
Chair’s paper on elements explained that although this may limit the
availability of a mistake of law
defence, this approach was justified as a
mistake of law defence would be ‘very difficult to advance anyways, given
that only
“manifest” Charter violations, and no borderline cases,
would fall under the Court’s jurisdiction due to the threshold
requirement’.[43] In other
words, ‘borderline’ cases, or cases where the legality of the state
act is uncertain, would be excluded by
the threshold requirement, so a mistake
of law defence, to be successful, would need to rely on a view of the law which
was clearly
and unambiguously wrong.
This approach was not objected to during
the discussion of the Chair’s paper on elements at the June 2009 meeting,
and in this
context it was also reiterated that the threshold clause would
‘exclude situations that could fall within a legal grey
area’.[44]
The consistently
expressed intention of States advocating for the inclusion of the threshold
clause is therefore that it excludes
not only small-scale acts but also excludes
borderline cases where the illegality of the state act is uncertain. Although
the interpretation
of the threshold clause will ultimately be for the
Court’s judges to decide in a particular case, the best interpretation
appears
to be that it meets the requirements of the German proposal in limiting
the scope of the crime to those acts which are large scale,
obvious and
undisputable violations of international law.
VII. CONCLUSION
In summary, states negotiating the crime of aggression amendments to the
Rome Statute have moved away from the Nuremberg approach
of criminalising a
leader’s involvement in a ‘war of aggression’. The
shortcomings of the Nuremberg approach, including
the lack of definition as to
what would constitute a ‘war’ and the need for the definition to
remain robust enough to
cover acts of aggression which are not acts of
conventional warfare, suggest that a “new” approach is needed. The
“new”
approach discussed in the SWGCA is not, however, entirely new.
It has been a matter of debate since the time of Nuremberg –
as evidenced
by the debates among delegates to the London Conference itself.
This approach
defines the crime of aggression in respect of an act of aggression more broadly,
but limits the scope of individual
criminal liability to those acts that meet
the threshold of an act ‘which by its character, gravity and scale,
constitutes
a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations’.
In other words, it limits liability to an act of aggression by
a state that
meets a certain scale and gravity and which is clearly a violation of
international law. This approach, contained in
language which has resulted from
many years of discussions and compromise among states involved in the
negotiations, seems sufficient
to balance the objectives of maintaining a
definition that is flexible and robust enough to apply to future cases, while
excluding
from the scope of the crime those cases not sufficiently serious to
warrant criminal prosecution.
[∗] Senior Legal Officer,
Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s
Department, Australian Government. The views expressed in this paper are those
of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Australian
Government. The author wishes to thank Sophie Vasenszky for her assistance in
researching this paper.
[1]
Charter of the United Nations, opened for signature 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS
XVI (entered into force 24 October
1945).
[2] Agreement for the
Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis,
United Nations, 8 August 1945, 82 UNTS 279 (entered into force 8 August
1945).
[3] The current draft is
contained in Report of the Special Working Group on the Crime of
Aggression, Appendix I, 30-32, UN Doc ICC-ASP/7/20/Add.1, and reads
‘For the purposes of this Statute, “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.’
[4] Agreement
for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European
Axis, United Nations, 8 August 1945, 82 UNTS 279 (entered into force 8
August 1945).
[5] Art
6(a).
[6] Roger Clark,
‘Nuremberg and the Crime Against Peace’ (2007) 6 Washington
University Global Studies Law Review 527,
529-535.
[7] Convention for the
Definition of Aggression, 3 July 1933, 147 LNTS 69 (entered into force 16
October 1933).
[8] For a
description of the negotiations at the London Conference, see also Benjamin B
Ferencz, Defining International Aggression: The Search for World Peace
(1975) vol 1, 40-41.
[9]
Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military
Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 - 1 October 1946, published at
Nuremberg, Germany, 1947 (hereinafter Nuremberg
Judgment).
[10] Ibid,
192-4.
[11]
Ibid.
[12] Control Council Law
No. 10 for the Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace
and against Humanity, reproduced
in Trials of War Criminals before the
Nuremberg Military Tribunals, United States Government Printing Office,
1951, vol III, XVIII.
[13]
United States of America v. Ernst von Weizsäcker et al, Judgment,
Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, United
States Government Printing Office, 11-13 April 1949, vol XIV,
308.
[14] Grant M Dawson,
‘Defining Substantive Crimes within the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court: What
is the Crime of Aggression?’
(1999-2000) 19 New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative
Law 413, 431-2.
[15] Phani
Dascalopoulou-Livada, ‘The Crime of Aggression: Making Operative the
Jurisdiction of the ICC – Tendencies in the
PrepCom’ (2002)
Proceedings of the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Society of
International Law 185, 187. Dawson, above n 14 at 431, makes a similar
point when he states that ‘[t]he terms “war of aggression”
and
“aggressive war” are synonymous with the term,
“aggression”’, but he does not, however, elaborate
on this
point.
[16] Ferencz, above n 8,
41.
[17] Formulation of the
Principles recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the
Judgment of the Tribunal, GA Res 177 (II), UN GAOR, 2nd sess,
123rd plen mtg, UN Doc A/Res/177 (II)
(1947).
[18] Yearbook of the
International Law Commission, vol II,
131-7.
[19] Ibid
135.
[20] Although the remainder
of Article 2 included as a crime against peace several state acts which may also
have constituted an act of
aggression, such as annexation of another
state’s territory.
[21]
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1991, vol II (Part Two),
95. The code was renamed ‘Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and
Security of Mankind’
in
1987.
[22] Yearbook of the
International Law Commission, 1993, vol II (Part One), 64. The United
Kingdom expressed misgivings about the article and felt that the wording needed
‘careful
adaptation in order to prescribe clearly and specifically those
acts which attract individual criminal responsibility’, ibid
101.
[23] International Law
Commission, Thirteenth Report on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace
and Security of Mankind, 40-41, UN Doc. A/CN.4/466
(1995).
[24] Yearbook of the
International Law Commission, 1996, vol II (Part Two),
42-43.
[25] Resolution on the
Definition of Aggression, GA Res 3314, UN GAOR, 34th sess,
2319th plen mtg, UN Doc A/Res/3314
(1974).
[26] Compilation of
Proposals on the Crime of Aggression submitted at the Preparatory Committee on
the Establishment of an International
Criminal Court (1996-1998), the United
Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an
International
Criminal Court (1998) and the Preparatory Commission for the
International Criminal Court (1999), 23, UN Doc PCNICC/1999/INF/2
(1999).
[27] Ibid 24. This
proposal was based on an earlier German proposal put forward in 1997 to the
Court’s Preparatory Committee, the
forerunner of PrepCom, see ibid, 12.
The slight differences in wording of the two proposals are not relevant for the
purposes of
this paper.
[28]
Ibid, 6.
[29] Proposal
submitted by Germany: The Crime of Aggression: A Further Informal Discussion
Paper, UN Doc PCNICC/2000/WGCA/DP.4
(2000).
[30] In regard to the
scope of individuals potentially covered by the crime, however, the current
definition is narrower than the Nuremberg
precedent – see Kevin Jon Heller
‘Retreat from Nuremberg: The Leadership Requirement in the Crime of
Aggression’
(2007) 18 European Journal of International Law
477.
[31] Report of the
Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (continued),
Addendum Part II: Proposals for a Provision
on the Crime of Aggression, UN
Doc PCNICC/2002/2/Add.2
(2002).
[32] The paper limited
the scope of the crime to ‘an act of aggression which, by its character,
gravity and scale, constitutes a
flagrant violation of the Charter of the United
Nations.’
[33] Report of
the Preparatory Commission, above n 31,
3.
[34] Informal
Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of
Aggression, UN Doc ICC-ASP/5/SWGCA/INF.1,
7.
[35]
Ibid.
[36] Report of the
Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, ICC-ASP/5/35, Annex II,
11.
[37] It should be noted that
the list of acts in Article 8bis(2), based on United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 3314, may also provide
guidance as to the scope of what constitutes
an ‘act of aggression’ for the purposes of the crime of aggression.
Many
of the acts are acts which may constitute a ‘war’ in a
conventional sense. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper
to look in
detail at the effect of this list and its interaction with the more generic
definition in the chapeau of Article
8bis(2).
[38] Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187
UNTS 3, (entered into force 1 July 2002), preamble and art
5(1).
[39] The intent of the
threshold clause to exclude ‘borderline’ cases was noted in reports
of the SWGCA’s deliberations
in June 2006 (Informal Inter-Sessional
meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, above n 34,
6), January-February 2007 (Report of the Special Working Group on the Crime
of Aggression, above n 36, 11) and February 2009 (Report of the Special
Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, above n 3,
22.
[40] Discussion Paper 3:
Definition of Aggression in the context of the Statute of the ICC, UN Doc
ICC-ASP/4/32, Annex
II.D,[3].
[41] Report of the
Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, ICC-ASP/6/20/Add.1, Annex
II, 4.
[42] Elements of crimes
are adopted by the Assembly of States Parties to assist the court in the
interpretation and application of the
articles defining the crimes under the
Court’s jurisdiction – Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90, (entered into force
1 July 2002), art 9.
[43]
Informal Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Crime of Aggression 8-10 June 2009:
Non-paper by the Chairman on the Elements of Crimes, 28 May 2009,
<http://www2.icccpi.int/iccdocs/
asp_docs/SWGCA/Non-paper-Elements-of-the-CoA-28May2009-ENG.pdf>
at 28 September 2009, 5-6.
[44]
Informal Inter-Sessional Meeting on the Crime of Aggression, hosted by the
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Woodrow
Wilson School, at the
Princeton Club, New York, from 8 to 10 June 2009, UN Doc ICC-ASP/8/INF.2,
5-6.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZYbkIntLaw/2008/24.html