Aktuelna pitanja u pogledu agresije u međunarodnom javnom i međunarodnom krivičnom pravu

In the last two centuries, the world and humanity have changed more than ever. The rapid development of technology, but also socio-humanistic and political thought has led to a completely different perception of the world by people. The desire to spread influence, aided by technological development, has pushed the great powers into the bloodiest armed conflicts the world has ever seen. After the end of the First and Second World Wars, it proved necessary not only to sanction the leaders of the idea of aggressive war, but also to sanction the insult to the independence of countries through the armed attack. In this regard, the international community has approached a more detailed definition of the concept of aggression and crimes against peace (crime of aggression) and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms with the aim of preventing armed conflicts, stopping them and promoting peaceful settlement of international disputes. It is this idea that is the subject of the text that follows. The author wants to make his modest contribution to legal science in terms of analysis of the concept of aggression in international law (primarily in international public law), but also the definition and elements of (international) crime – crime against peace (aggression) in international criminal law. In addition to explaining and clarifying the content of the concept of aggression, the author will analyze this international crime contained in international documents, present the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in relation to aggression, and explain the position and role of the United Nations in preventing armed conflict and peace. Finally, a critical analysis of all the above, the author will present the advantages and disadvantages of mechanisms for preventing armed conflict and punishing perpetrators of international crimes against peace through the prism of the amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

There is no agreed definition of international criminal law, but the term is a useful way of describing those aspects of public international law and domestic law that are concerned with crimes having an international aspect or dimension. It therefore ranges from the important, but generally unexciting, topic of mutual assistance in criminal matters to the more gripping subject of ‘international crimes’. That term is a convenient way to describe those offences that are the concern of every state because they corrode society. Even when the crime is committed on behalf of a state, international law places individual criminal responsibility on those who commit them. Furthermore, international law generally allows states to prosecute international crimes regardless of where they are committed or the nationality of the accused (universal jurisdiction). The acts constituting international crimes are not a new invention but as old as mankind, but, with the notable exception of piracy, it was only in the twentieth century that a concerted international effort was made to confront them. We will look at how the Security Council has tried to deal with international crimes, inevitably in a piecemeal way.

Ratner, Steven R. <i>The Thin Justice of International Law: A Moral Reckoning of the Law of Nations</i>.New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Pp. 496. $85.00 (cloth).

International Criminal Justice is a controversial concept, and there is a burgeoning body of literature on its exact contours. Understood broadly, the term “international criminal justice” covers a broad category, integrating international criminal law (ICL) within an overarching interdisciplinary enterprise also “incorporating philosophical, historical, political and international relations, sociological, anthropological and criminological perspectives” (Roberts, 2007). International criminal law consists, at its core, of a combination of criminal law and public international law principles. The idea of individual criminal responsibility and the concept of prosecuting an individual for a specific (macrocriminal) act are derived from criminal law, while the classical (Nuremberg) offenses form part of (public) international law and thus the respective conduct is directly punishable under ICL (principle of direct individual criminal responsibility in public international law). The dualistic base of international criminal law is also reflected in the reading of the mandates of the international criminal tribunals; one can either take a “security, peace, and human rights”–oriented approach or a “criminal justice”–oriented approach, either of which may entail a paradoxical goal or purpose ambiguity of international criminal law. In any case, the strong grounding in criminal law, together with the actual enforcement of international criminal law by way of international criminal proceedings and trials, converts international criminal law into criminal law on a supranational level and thus entails the full application of the well-known principles of liberal, post-enlightenment criminal law, in particular the principles of legality, culpability, and fairness. These principles constitute the minimum standard of any criminal justice system based on the rule of law and thus must also apply in an international criminal justice system. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 and the effective establishment of the Court in 2002 have led to an institutionalization of international criminal law, turning the page on ad hoc imposition in favor of a treaty-based universal system. In addition, the Rome Statute provides for the first codification of international criminal law, with a potentially universal reach. Therewith, international criminal law was not only united into a single penal system of the international community, but it was also extended beyond its fundamental core areas of substantive and procedural law into other branches of criminal law (law of sanctions, enforcement of sentences, and judicial assistance).

The chequered history of the criminalisation of aggression as a crime under international law has reached an important milestone with the adoption of the Kampala Resolution on the Crime of Aggression (2010). This resolution provides for the definition of the crime of aggression to be included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as for conditions for the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over the crime. The second edition of this volume contains an overview and discussion of the historical and normative processes (legal and political) that culminated in the adoption of the Kampala Resolution. The different components of the resolution are critically assessed against the background of the various political and legal responses to aggression, while taking into account contemporary developments in the field of international criminal law. The volume is primarily but not exclusively concerned with the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. It also includes a chapter on national and regional criminal justice responses to aggression, notably developments concerning the amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, which also provides for the criminalisation of aggression.About the first edition'A successful attempt to provide a working definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC thereon. At the same time, it purports to trace the historical development of the norm of aggression and analyse the problematic issues concerning its definition. Using accessible style and language, the author correctly grasps the need for a two-sided approach to aggression, from the point of view of states, as well as of individual criminal responsibility, and touches upon the critical issue of the connection between maintenance of international peace and security and international criminal justice. [...]the book provides a thorough and concise analysis of the elements of aggression, one of the most controversial crimes in international criminal law and pinpoints its place in the complex scheme of interplay between collective security and international criminal justice. [...] the value of the present title lies in its contribution to the ongoing debate on the interrelation between state and individual responsibility for international crimes - a debate that seems far from being settled.'Irena Giorgou in 2012 JICJ 712

This chapter assesses the approaches of Asia-Pacific states to international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL), within the context of the international legal framework. It first addresses influential approaches in the region, including how states present themselves in relation to IHL and ICL issues. Next, it considers how regional states engage with the issue of responsibility in international law, with an emphasis on IHL and ICL. The chapter then examines acceptance of these two bodies of law, arguing that there is no hostility to the basic norms of IHL, but a more unsettled approach to ICL. There is a definite chill in respect of aspects that potentially encroach on independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, or that smack of Western neo-colonialism. These are of course subjectively evaluated by each state. In practical terms, this frostiness can be seen in the responses to external threats of accountability against political leaders, the exercise of universal jurisdiction, Security Council referrals to the International Criminal Court, Pillar Three of the R2P doctrine, the crime of aggression, and certain formulations of other international crimes (for example, war crimes in non-international armed conflict). However, even within these broad regional trends, there is no uniformity. There is decidedly no collective ‘Asia-Pacific approach’ that emerges from the present chapter.

Over the last few years, international criminal law has included an internationally recognized definition of the crime of aggression. One may sight the respective portion from part two (jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable laws) article 08 of the respective document. The purpose of this research represents the historical background of individual criminal responsibility under international law and the concept of individual criminal accountability for the crimes falling under the ambit of international criminal law committed by persons. Whereas the idea of how an individual could be brought to justice, for one of the core crimes of ICC's statutes, i.e., crime of aggression, was recently adopted and envisaged into Rome statutes, after the Kampala conference 2010. The concept of individual criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression faced many difficulties in at-least adopting its proper definition, which was leftover for future when Rome statue was formulated. To keep pace, this concept needs further evolution. Such an evolution demands such a condition wherein while granting the characteristics of adaptability with the contextual conditions and principles of criminal law. This article explores the anatomy of the crime of aggression and highlights issues that remain to be resolved.

At meantime the era of human rights succeeding the end of World War Ⅱ, the institution and order of international society underwent dramatic transformation that obviously featured in the expansion, specialization and systemization of international organizations, for example, the United Nations and its sub-organizations such as the unification of the European Union and American and African regional organizations. In addition, the order of international laws has changed radically. Besides the interacting development among the independent systems of international environmental law, international criminal law, international economic law, that has delicately constituted both the procedural and essential rules of international law, the relation between international laws and sovereign nations has also been re-defined. Through the introduction to the concept of ”complete value of international society”, the connection between sovereignty and international law has been re-interpreted. The most innovative breakthrough was nothing but the concepts of Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, as well as the acceptance of the philosophical reasoning behind the concepts. Thus international law has gradually diversified its appearance and, by further development of the above concepts that jointed the different fields of international law, the institution of international law has been overturned. From the aspect of substantial norm, the continuing restriction of applying the opposition rule, development of treaty reservation, succession and admission of nation, ruling of extradition treaties, restriction on national exemption, defining the serious jeopardizing act of international crime, the gradual change of the status of international soft law and the transforming of the national liability system, have attributed to revolution of the content of international law. From the aspect of the procedural norm, the expansion of common jurisdiction and the change of international/domestic lawsuit initiation, have shown great influence that closely connected international criminal law. Therefore, Jus Cogens ought to be the most important medium of the recent development of international law that revealing the combination of Jus Cogens and state responsibility law system, also further led international law to the equivalence of rights and obligations. Frankly, the Vienna Treaty Law Convention signed in 1969, was the milestone of the international law development, which positioned the Jus Cogens in the statute law. If ”power-oriented” is the characteristic of international law in 19th century, then international law after 1950s has gradually dispensed primitiveness and become ”rule-oriented”. Although 1969 could be the beginning of Jus Cognes, suspicion on carrying out this concept in international law still remains. International law scholar, Ian Sinclair, concluded opinions toward Jus Cogens that further confirmed ”Jus Cogens is still a mystery”. Some scholars even express directly that nevertheless adopting Jus Cogens has essentially attributed to the transformation of international law, yet there is worry about the application of Jus Cognes could be contradictive, and even opening the gate for some certain countries to import particular international law systems matching their ideology, thus becoming denial to a diversified international society. Even though contrary opinions toward Jus Cogens remain, from 1968 the concept has been accepted by sovereign countries and also adopted to judgments that further expand Jus Cogens, making this theory combine with other institutions of the international law rather than be confined within treaty law field. Hence, focusing on Jus Cogens and the connection as well as the change of Jus Cogens in the late 40 years, this thesis analyzes the elaboration on Jus Cogens from national practice, international justice and scholars. However, this thesis could only be able to introduce this theory briefly due to the limited length. Therefore, this thesis mainly discuss the following particular sectors of the theory of Jus Cogens: (1) the definition and development of Jus Cogens. (2) the objects regulated by Jus Cogens and the effect. (3) connections between Jus Cogens and other international law concepts newly developing trend. (4) At last, examining and looking back to dialogues made between Jus Cogens and international law.

State Sovereignty and International Criminal Law, edited by Morten Bergsmo and Ling Yan, brings together two recent issues of international law: the rise of international criminal law as a building block in the nascent constitution of the international legal order and the increasingly active participation of China in international law. Even though China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), it has until recently been de facto absent from the debates over norms of international law. Likewise, international criminal justice is a field of law that stagnated for more than 40 years. The last two decades have witnessed a revival of both phoenixes. This anthology, prepared in the context of the Li Haopei Lecture Series of the Forum for International Criminal Law, offers the view of Chinese and European international lawyers, scholars and judges on three issues: immunity of state officials from foreign prosecution for international crimes; universal jurisdiction and the newly adopted amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) on the crime of aggression. These three issues are highly topical. In the third and perhaps pivotal chapter, Zhou Lulu, director of the Treaty Division of the Department of Treaty and Law, Ministry Foreign Affairs of China, gives a brief analysis of a few controversial issues in contemporary international criminal law. All of the controversial issues addressed in this article, including aggression, universal jurisdiction and immunity, are discussed by the other contributors to the book - some agreeing and some disagreeing with Zhou. Zhou initiates the debate by making assertive and controversial points on controversial issues. She begins provocatively with the crime of aggression, as defined in the amendment to the Rome Statute adopted at the 2010 Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala, Uganda. The preconditions for the

This article is a review of the book, written by the German lawyer and international judge M.Bohlander, dedicated to the search for contacts with extraterrestrial civilizations. The author constructs a number of concepts with the help of which such research is given a legal dimension. In particular, this concerns the concept of “metalaw”, which is a certain set of norms and principles applicable in relations with artificial intelligence. The existing international legal regulation of this issue is clarified. Based on futurological works and science fiction, the author of the book tries to identify weak points in the existing regulatory framework, which hypothetically can become an insurmountable obstacle in the event of contact with aliens from other worlds or significantly damage it. The existing array of international human rights law and international humanitarian law is analyzed for the extent to which existing norms are designed for their application by other intelligent beings, besides humans. International crimes (crime of aggression, genocide) are also analyzed in terms of their possible reformatting in new conditions. Referring to sources of international space law, in particular the Declaration of Principles Relating to Actions Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence of 1989 (as amended in 2010), approved by the International Astronautical Academy and the International Institute of Space Law, the author notes a number of provisions that oblige the parties that signed this Declaration not to respond to signals from outside without first receiving instructions and consent from the UN. However, in general, he comes to the conclusion that the existing international legal system is not ready to meet with representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations. The final point in the discussion about the direction in which international law, in particular international criminal law, should be developed is apparently a matter for the future, which will answer the questions outlined in the study under review.

This book fills a major gap in the scholarly literature concerning international criminal law, comparative criminal law, and human rights law. The principle of legality (non-retroactivity of crimes and punishments and related doctrines) is fundamental to criminal law and human rights law. Yet this was the first book-length study of the status of legality in international law - in international criminal law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. This was also the first book to survey legality/non-retroactivity in all national constitutions, developing the patterns of implementation of legality in the various legal systems such as Common Law, Civil Law, Islamic Law, and Asian Law around the world. This is a necessary book for any scholar, practitioner, and library in the area of international, criminal, comparative, human rights, or international humanitarian law.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: ICC) is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the entire international community that threaten security, peace, and well-being of the world. This article argues that serious (transitional) economic offences should belong in this group. Ignoring these crimes, which often represent economic violence characteristic of transitional and post-conflict countries, can lead to another cycle of armed conflict and/or physical violence as well as to internal and external insecurity. Responses to globalization are having a significant effect on international law and institutions with a view to protecting economic and social human rights, human security, and human dignity. Sometimes, as in the case of Croatia, national states are not able to and/or unwilling to prosecute serious and systemic economic crimes, which in turn undermines individual and collective security. The same could be said for international criminal law. By ignoring these crimes and violations – unlike what international human rights law, supranational criminology, and transitional justice does – the core international criminal law no longer responds to the needs of societies and individuals. The Rechtsgut in need of protection by prosecuting serious economic crimes that fulfill the threshold of core crimes on an international level is comprised of the “security, peace and well-being of the world.” Therefore, one could argue that the International Criminal Court’s possible involvement in economic violence does have a legal base, without needing to amend the ICC’s Statute (hereinafter: ICCSt). Since one must be aware of the diversity that exists as to the criteria for international criminalization, this article is based on broader grounds in order to argue in favor of international criminalization of these economic crimes. The article therefore emphasizes the importance of connecting narratives of international criminal law, with discourses on international human rights law (based on Art. 21 of the ICCSt), human security, (supranational) criminology, transitional justice, and (economic) criminal law. In the line of (human) security discourse, this approach seeks to find arguments as to whether or not it is necessary to begin prosecuting serious (transitional) economic offences as crimes under international law. First, this article gives a brief overview of the failed experiment in Croatia concerning the prosecution of transitional economic crimes that served as incentive, based on the ICC’s complementarity principle.

The main stages of the formation and development of the institution of criminal liability of the individual in international law are studied in the article, features and characteristic features of each of the studied stages are clarified, as well as various doctrinal approaches to the recognition or non-recognition of the individual, the subject of international law analyzed, and consequently, the subject of international crime within the framework of the International criminal law. It has been shown that the primary responsibility for persecuting individuals lies with the state. However, individuals are prosecuted in accordance with international criminal law. The expansion of this practice is a manifestation of the further formation and implementation of the principle of punishing individuals for committing international crimes recognized by the world community as international crimes. The institute of international criminal responsibility of individuals for committing international crimes is a significant deterrent to modern international law to prevent violations of its most important norms. The statutes of the tribunals oblige states to provide assistance, including search and identification, obtaining evidence and finding evidence, arresting and detaining, and transferring the accused to the tribunal. All this requires the introduction of appropriate provisions in the criminal and criminal procedural law of states. It is concluded that the formation and development of the institution of individual criminal responsibility in international law has come a long way from complete non-recognition and denial to the emergence of a permanent judicial institution to which international crimes fall and individuals are recognized as perpetrators. An individual becomes a subject of international law and will be held accountable if he or she commits international crimes. It is confirmed that the principle of inevitability of criminal punishment has the ability to be implemented in any case. which is a progressive phenomenon of modern reality.

The first session offered an external, i.e. a non-‘international criminal law’ perspective on the Conference topic. Its purpose was to consider whether non-international criminal law mechanisms at either the international or the national level could provide some guidance on how to address corporate involvement in international crimes. The first paper, presented by Anita Ramasastry,1 provided an overview of the involvement of corporations in international crimes. Larissa van den Herik2 then outlined the accountability mechanisms for corporate violations of human rights under international law, and Katherine Gallagher3 presented a paper on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) litigation in the United States and its possible relevance for international criminal law. Finally, Roland Hefendehl4 elaborated on a domestic, i.e. the German criminal law approach to white-collar crime. The panel was chaired by George P. Fletcher.5 After the presentation of the papers, the general discussion focused on the ATCA and its possible interrelation with international criminal law. In a reply to a question on whether there is opposition to the ATCA, Katherine Gallagher explained that corporations take ATCA cases seriously due in large part to fear of damage to their reputations. Such cases are vigorously litigated, with defendants invoking various legal and policy arguments for why these cases should be dismissed. She referred in particular to the damages cases against companies who allegedly aided and abetted serious human rights violations through their operations in Apartheid South Africa, which are currently being heard by a US court.6 According to Gallagher, there has been a small but measurable impact of ATCA cases on corporate behaviour. Moreover, ATCA cases were of tremendous importance for the victims in providing a forum in which the claims could be raised and having courts consider — and in a growing number of cases affirm — that what had happened to the victims constituted a legal wrongdoing and a violation of international law. Nevertheless, Gallagher considers that the record remains mixed, when cases are judged in the traditional sense. She explained that only a few cases have reached the trial phase, due to dismissals on jurisdictional grounds or because of settlements during the pre-trial stage, by which companies mitigate the damage that a public trial would have on the public’s perception of the corporation. In relation to the question of whether and to what extent public attention is able to influence corporate behaviour, Andrew Clapham7 raised the example of Royal Dutch Shell and Sudan: in 2001, Shell announced that it would no longer supply jet fuel to the region after concentrated media attention on the situation in Darfur, Sudan.