Crime Of Aggression Research Articles

Prosecuting Russia’s Crime of Aggression: A critical reflection

Prosecuting Russia’s Crime of Aggression: A critical reflection

Subject of the crime of aggression under international and Ukrainian criminal law

Subject of the crime of aggression under international and Ukrainian criminal law

The formation of criminal liability for the crime of aggression in international law at the end of the XIX - first half of the XX century

The subject of this study is an act of aggression as a crime, according to the provisions of international criminal and international humanitarian law. The article examines in detail the prerequisites for the formation of legal, in particular, international legal responsibility for the commission of acts of aggression. The author believes that the end of the XIX century became the starting point for the development of legal responsibility for the conduct of aggressive wars, as well as the nature of their conduct. Special attention is paid to the fact that the provisions enshrined in the Charter and the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal have become imperative norms of international law in terms of fixing international crimes, as well as the principles of responsibility for their commission. It is separately noted that the verdict of the Tribunal became an act of increased strength of the people against the commission of crimes of aggression. The research methodology includes the use of such methods of legal science as historical, formal legal, systemic, as well as methods of analysis and dialectics. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that the work is a comprehensive detailed study of the process of establishing international criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression in the period from the end of the XIX century to the first half of the XX century. The author analyzes the historical and legal aspects of this process, considering various international documents, agreements and events of that time. The special contribution of the author of the study is expressed in the fact that based on an extensive analysis, the author, through the prism of legal doctrines, international norms and historical reality of the time period under consideration, draws conclusions about what factors influenced the development of understanding of the crime of aggression and why the legal status of criminal responsibility in this area began to form at that time.

The ICC jurisdiction in Ukraine: challenges and opportunities in the fight against impunity

This article examines the legal relationship between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Ukraine, a non-party to the Rome Statute, focusing on the scope of the Court's jurisdiction to consider Ukraine's referrals regarding serious crimes committed on its territory since 2014. Discussions regarding the extension of the ICC's jurisdiction over Ukraine commenced in 2014-2015 following Ukraine's two requests for recognition of the ICC's ad hoc jurisdiction. Following the full-scale invasion in 2022, the ICC consolidated these proceedings with the ongoing investigation of crimes committed in Ukraine since 2014. This article analyzes how the ICC's jurisdiction applies to Ukraine, the challenges and prospects for cooperation between the ICC and Ukraine in investigating crimes committed by Russian forces, and the broader implications for the international criminal justice system. The authors analyze arguments for and against Ukraine's ratification of the Rome Statute, concluding that the ICC's jurisdictional framework, particularly concerning the crime of aggression, requires refinement.

Military-Aggressive Crime as A Subject of War Criminology

The article is devoted to the study of military-aggressive crime as a subject of war criminology. It is established that military-aggressive crime is an extensive system of criminal practices based on crimes of aggression. Armed aggression against Ukraine as a foreign policy manifestation and consequence of the functioning of the Russian fascist political regime has as its consequence and accompanying manifestations a number of violent war crimes, crimes against humanity, as well as genocidal practices. They determine a backlash in the form of a system of violent war-related crimes. On this basis, two epistemological blocks are distinguished in the structure of military-aggressive crime: crimes of action and reaction. They are interconnected. The first determines the second. A number of war criminals among Ukrainian combatants, as well as civilians, who commit aggressive and violent hate crimes are caused by previous crimes against them, representatives of their community. It is stated that there is a paradoxical international legal situation when ongoing aggression as an internationally wrongful act of the State is recorded in various formats and at various levels, including the highest level of the UN, but at the same time, the international community does not respond to the crime of aggression in the forms inherent in criminal justice.

The Role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Resolving Israeli War Crimes Against Palestinian Civilians

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in the context of war crimes that harm Palestinian civilians, has become the focus of world attention. The International Criminal Court (ICC), based on the 1998 Rome Statute, has jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. This research analyzes the role of the ICC in dealing with Israeli war crimes against Palestinian civilians. The ICC, as a permanent international tribunal, can try perpetrators of war crimes regardless of their official capacity in their country of origin. The ICC has the potential to provide justice for Palestinian victims of war crimes, although the challenge is to exercise jurisdiction over non-party states and ensure its decisions comply with international expectations for justice and peace

The International Criminal Court: current problems and ways of their solution

The article examines the current problems of the functioning of the International Criminal Court, in particular the main problem – insufficient expected effectiveness, problematic issues of jurisdiction, initiation of proceedings, duration of proceedings and its influence on the effectiveness of the ICC, as well as the issue of proper cooperation between the ICC and states.
 It is emphasized that the establishment of international criminal justice bodies was a response to impunity for committed international crimes, which arises due to the ineffectiveness of national legal systems in the fight against international crimes. It is emphasized that the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court largely depends on cooperation with states and international organizations, as well as available financial and human resources.
 It is concluded that there is an urgent need for the international community to review the mechanisms of response to those states that, by not extraditing suspects, de facto contribute to impunity for committed international crimes; effective countermeasures and sanctions by states and international organizations should be applied to them.
 Emphasis is placed on the expediency of amending the Rome Statute in accordance with Article 121 of the Rome Statute, giving the International Criminal Court unconditional ratione materiae jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, as is the case with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is emphasized that the International Criminal Court should become a permanent court that will have such jurisdiction; in its turn, this will reduce the risk of committing new armed aggressions.
 A partial solution to the problem of the excessive length of criminal proceedings at the ICC is proposed by increasing funding and recruiting additional personnel.

Investigating and Prosecuting International Crimes Committed in the Context of the Russian Aggression Against Ukraine: The Polish Involvement

The paper aims to present the available options relating to the investigation and prosecution of international crimes allegedly committed in Ukraine by the Russian authorities and members of the Russian armed forces. Firstly, it presents domestic Ukrainian criminal proceedings on these crimes. Then, the ongoing investigation in the International Criminal Court on war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as the initiatives to create a special international court that would deal with the responsibility for the crime of aggression are explored. Finally, considering substantial Polish involvement, it would be interesting to have an insight into how Poland already has and could, in the future, further contribute to bringing to justice the perpetrators of international crimes committed in Ukraine.

Can They Deliver?

Abstract Joint Investigation Teams or JITs are practical mechanisms of cooperation that are established between two or more states to, jointly, conduct criminal investigations. Increasingly used in investigations into core international crimes (war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression), JITs are understudied in the field of international criminal law. This article examines how the procedures outlined in JIT legal frameworks are implemented in practice and assesses whether JITs can respond to the challenges of contemporary international crimes investigations. The article contends that, while JITs introduce some useful new cooperation processes, they fall short on many of their most promising features, which are difficult to implement fully in practice or in fact already exist.

Why Ukraine Needs an International - Not Internationalised - Tribunal to Prosecute the Crimes of Aggression Committed Against It

Ukraine has called for the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal to investigate and prosecute crimes of aggression committed against it in the context of the Russian invasion. Ukraine has insisted that such a tribunal must be international in nature. Members of the G7, however, have stated that they can only support an “internationalised” or hybrid tribunal embedded in Ukraine’s domestic legal system. This article considers the critiques advanced against the international tribunal model and contends that many of these arguments are flawed, while arguments in favour of the internationalised model are misplaced or overstated. In addition to other advantages, it is demonstrated that an international tribunal: could be set up more quickly; would have a greater prospect of ensuring immunities do not apply; and would be more effective in reinforcing the prohibition of the use of force, thereby maximising the potential of deterrence. For these reasons it is concluded that an international tribunal is the best option for ensuring that those most responsible for crimes of aggression committed against Ukraine are held to account.

Conceptual Model of Group Rules of Release from Punishment Due to Prescription

The legal sub-institution of release from punishment due to prescription is sufficiently explored in legal doctrine. However, attempts to define unified rules of release from punishment due to prescription in criminal legal doctrine have been made only occasionally. The purpose of the article is to determine, using dialectical, systemic, hermeneutic, and sociological scientific methods of learning the group rules of release from punishment due to prescription (Part 5 of Article 74, Article 80 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).The article offers the author’s definition of the concept of prescription in criminal law based on the analysis of the scholars’ positions regarding the grounds for the application of prescription.It has been established that the prescription does not apply in the case of committing certain criminal offences that are exhaustively defined in the criminal legislation. It is justified to support legislative initiatives on not applying the statute of limitations to persons who committed or were convicted, respectively, of crimes against the international legal order: the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, war crimes, or crimes against the peace and security of mankind. It is also acknowledged as relevant not to invoke the prescription for the enforcement of a conviction in the case of an individual convicted of crimes against the foundations of national security of Ukraine, as outlined in Articles 109–114-2 of the Criminal Code, which should be reflected in the legi slation.The conditions for the application of the prescription are defined. The concepts of “evasion of pretrial investigation or court”, “evasion of punishment” are analysed. Different legal situations are modelled, in which a person’s performance of certain actions may indicate evasion of pre-trial investigation or court.The common features of the types of release from punishment due to prescription, as established during the research, enabled the author to formulate the following conceptual model of group rules for their application.In the case of release from punishment due to prescription (Part 5 of Article 74, Article 80 of the Criminal Code), the court must take into account:1) the type of criminal offence committed or for which a person was convicted;2) the period that has passed after the commission of the criminal offence or from the date of entry into force of the indictment of the court, which is determined taking into account the degree of gravity of the committed criminal offence, the type and degree of punishment provided for by the sanction of the article (part of the article) of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, or until which person was convicted, respectively;3) the behaviour of a person after the commission of a crime or from the date of entry into force of a guilty verdict of the court.

Why the International Criminal Court Cannot Afford Justice for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine and what is the Way Forward?

The article focuses on the investigation at the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression committed by Russia and the limitations that exist for ensuring justice at the ICC, and analyzes alternatives for punishing those responsible for aggression against Ukraine.

ГОЛОДОМОРИ ХХ ТА РОСІЙСЬКО-УКРАЇНСЬКА ВІЙНА ХХІ СТОЛІТТЯ: ВСТАНОВЛЕННЯ ФАКТІВ ТА ДОКАЗУВАННЯ ЗЛОЧИНІВ ТОТАЛІТАРНИХ РЕЖИМІВ

The article is devoted to the problems of determining the mechanisms of prosecution for crimes committed by the totalitarian regime during the Holodomor-genocide (other artificial famines) in Ukraine and the conduct of the Russian-Ukrainian war in modern conditions. The need to create a special mechanism of justice to prosecute persons involved in crimes, to conduct an investigation by the International Criminal Court in accordance with the Rome Statute is argued. Attention is focused on the role of documenting the facts of the commission of international crimes (the crime of aggression, the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes), collecting and submitting evidence of the commission of these crimes to the court. The importance of the application of special and forensic knowledge in proving the facts of the commission of crimes by the totalitarian regime is determined. The role of non-governmental, human rights organizations in helping law enforcement agencies to form the evidentiary base of crimes is emphasized. The position is expressed regarding the need to develop certain algorithms, rules, questionnaires, methods for collecting, recording and researching evidentiary information. The importance of researching information about committed international crimes in electronic sources, recording digital evidence is analyzed. The possibility of using the data of new forensic areas in the formation of evidentiary information: digital and nuclear forensics is considered.

The 2018 Activation of the Crime of Aggression: To the Hague Dock for Invading a Country?

The 2018 Activation of the Crime of Aggression: To the Hague Dock for Invading a Country?

A Crime in Search of a Court: Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine and the Challenges of Jurisdictional Immunities

A Crime in Search of a Court: Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine and the Challenges of Jurisdictional Immunities

Criminal Policy in the Field of Digital Counterpropaganda During the War

Criminal policy in the field of digital countermeasures against propaganda during war involves propaganda definition and its forms at international and national levels. Detection of various propaganda forms, classified as criminal offenses that encroach on foundations of national security, public order and security, as well as peace and security of humanity and the international legal order, is extremely relevant today. The most dangerous form of propaganda is war propaganda. War propaganda is a separate criminal offense that affects peace and security of mankind and the international legal order. War propaganda is a criminal offence, similar to the crime of aggression and war crimes, which requires their distinction. Rapid technological development and expansion of the digital space dictate new trends that should be taken into account when forming a criminal policy in the field of digital counterpropaganda during wartime. The protection of national security and democratic values requires a balanced approach: the use of digital means should not violate the basic rights and freedoms of citizens. The study of criminal policy in the field of digital countermeasures against propaganda during the war was facilitated by the use of a complex of scientific methods: 1) logic one (for propaganda characterization of and its types, determination of digital means of countermeasures against this phenomenon); 2) philosophical (in order to find a philosophical basis for countering propaganda); 3) historical and legal one (during the analysis of the historical and legal experience of countering propaganda in wartime); 4) formal and logical one (for construction of criminal policy in the field of digital countermeasures to propaganda during wartime); 5) comparative legal one (when comparing the implementation of criminal policy in Ukraine and other States).

Features of the organization of interaction between the international criminal court and law enforcement structures of Ukraine regarding the investigation of crimes

The article examines the statistics of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ukrainian Helsinki Union for Human Rights, and the Kharkiv Human Rights Group regarding the investigation of international war crimes. A sociological survey of NPU employees, the prosecutor's office, lawyers, and victims of war crimes was analyzed, and problematic issues that hinder the effective investigation of international crimes were outlined based on the results. It was found that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in relation to the investigation of the most serious international crimes is divided into: subject, territorial, universal, temporal and substantive. The subject jurisdiction of the ICC extends to crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The national system of investigating crimes has been studied since 2014. It is theoretically justified that the key task at the moment is to document the consequences of an armed invasion - in an intensified mode, with the aim of providing both national and international judicial institutions with sufficient evidence, the Office of the General Prosecutor, the SBU, the NPU, the National Guard of Ukraine, other law enforcement structures. The problem of ensuring security during the collection of information by law enforcement officers, as well as other persons involved in the process of transferring information, evidence, testimony, etc., is outlined, because all these processes, as a rule, take place in the combat zone or in the adjacent territories. It was concluded that in order to improve the effectiveness of the investigation of international crimes in Ukraine, it is necessary to implement as soon as possible: a clear policy regarding the national system of prosecution for international crimes; effective coordination of both national and international bodies of pretrial investigation; quick exchange of information; a generalized electronic database of documentation with access to both prosecutors and investigators.

Legal Challenges in Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression in the Russo-Ukrainian War

Abstract The Russian invasion of Ukraine has opened a debate over how to ensure accountability for the supreme international crime, namely the crime of aggression. Prosecuting the crime of aggression related to Russia’s attack on Ukraine is hampered by the fact that neither country, Russia nor Ukraine, are Member States of the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (icc) and transferred the crime to its jurisdiction. As a result, this article will examine how and in what ways the crime of aggression may be prosecuted in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war, with a particular emphasis on prosecuting the crime through the icc, domestic courts, or by establishing an ad hoc tribunal. Based on an analysis of the legal aspects of prosecuting the crime of aggression, the article suggests that currently, the most appropriate approach to prosecuting the crime in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war is to establish an international ad hoc tribunal, either through a treaty signed by the United Nations and Ukraine on the basis of a referral from the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Secretary-General or a multilateral treaty between Ukraine and other states supported by the United Nations.

Crime of Aggression before Domestic Courts: Some Contemporary Challenges

Summary The article focuses on contemporary challenges concerning the domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression. These challenges have one common feature, that they deal with the scope of jurisdiction over crime of aggression at a domestic level. The author analyses applicability of jurisdictional immunity (based on the principle pars in parem non habet iurisdictionem), immunity of State officials, both personal (ratione personae) and material (ratione materiae), and finally also the availability of universal jurisdiction in relation to the crime of aggression. The contribution is built on the presumption that even though each category of crimes under international law has its unique characteristics, they all share some common definitional features, reflected among else in the famous Cassese’s definition of crime under international law. The author argues that all crimes under international law are to be treated uniformly as much as possible, and therefore – relatedly – there should not be any unsubstantiated differences in standing of the crime of aggression comparing to standing of remaining categories of crimes under international law.

The Competences of the International Criminal Court and the conflict in Ukraine

Abstract This article endeavours to answer whether, in light of the current International Criminal Court’s (ICC) powers, it is possible to hold the Russian Federation accountable for international crimes. The answer hinges on the type of crimes committed, as some (such as the crime of aggression) are considered excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction. The article also explores alternative methods of holding Russia accountable, such as establishing a special ad hoc tribunal, a topic widely discussed in the European Parliament and culminating in a resolution of 19 January 2023.