Crime Of Aggression Research Articles

Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary

A definition of the crime of aggression was reached at the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Uganda in 2010.1 The ICC Statute has been the subject of many commentaries,2 the crime of aggression, which was left undefined during discussions in Rome,3 certainly deserved its own commentary. This book is written to fill this gap. Its uniqueness is, therefore, unquestionable since considered alone, the crime of aggression has been the subject of countless international law textbooks,4 many of which were authored by many of the contributors to this book. The editors, Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga, in collaboration with leading scholars, produced what they describe as a ‘landmark’ commentary, ‘which will be the authoritative guide for all practitioners, scholars and simply those who wish to get the bottom of the provisions’ legal complexities’.5 This authority does not only lie in the fact that over 50 scholars contributed, the book has succeeded in bringing together those same experts who played an influential role in the drafting history of the crime of aggression. These experts were either members of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, which drafted the resolution amending the ICC Statute, or active negotiators and participants to the Review Conference. More than guidelines to interpreting the crime of aggression, this book provides a living account of the legislative history of one of the most challenging issues of international criminal law.

On the Activation of ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression

On the Activation of ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression

From Kampala to New York—The Final Negotiations to Activate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the Crime of Aggression

The article focusses on the final negotiations this December during the Assembly of States Parties meeting, where states decided to activate the icc’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The article commences with a brief background on prosecuting the crime, the negotiation of the definition and conditions for the exercise of icc jurisdiction over it, and the Kampala Review Conference adoption of the crime. It then discusses the dispute as to jurisdiction that developed post-Kampala, and how it was apparently resolved at the December meeting. The article then assesses the potential impact of activating the icc’s 4th crime in terms of deterrence, and whether the December activating resolution actually resolved the jurisdiction dispute, taking the view that it did not, and that the activating resolution was arguably an improper modification of the Kampala agreement and jurisdiction may not be as limited as what appears to have been agreed.

Julius Stone, Aggression, and the Future of the International Criminal Court

The article is concerned with the crime of aggression, the long and contested history behind its regulation, the final incorporation in the Rome Statute, and the implication of the regulation for the standing of the international criminal court. In order to explain and understand the struggle over aggression, the article recovers the writings of Julius Stone. It is contended that his writings can not only help us in understanding the key elements that have made aggression a highly controversial topic in international criminal law but also in comprehending the underlying features of the current regulation. Drawing on Stone’s account of justice, the article further suggests that, in light of the position in which the court finds itself, it should approach the crime of aggression with modesty and self-restrain.

El crimen de agresión en el Estatuto de la Corte Penal Internacional

In December of 2017, within the framework of the Rome Statute that creates the International Criminal Court, the 16th Assembly of States Parties adopted by consensus the Resolution ICC-ASP / 16 / Res.5, entitled «Activation of the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of aggression». Under the aforementioned Resolution, it was established: (i) the definition of the crime of aggression adopted in 2010 by the Conference of States Parties to the Rome Statute, held in Kampala (Uganda) has become applicable. Likewise, the universal scope of the criminal sanction of this crime is reaffirmed, by virtue of non-conventional international legal norms, like customary norms or jus cogens, and (ii) effective jurisdiction is granted to a jurisdictional body, the International Criminal Court, in order to administer justice with respect to the crime of aggression. In this paper it will be addressed the question of the definition of the crime of aggression under the Statute of Rome and its universal impact (Section I) and, then, the question of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on this crime (Section II).

О приведении в действие юрисдикции МУС в отношении преступления агрессии

О приведении в действие юрисдикции МУС в отношении преступления агрессии

The Rome Statute: Global Justice and the Asymmetries of Recognition

Given the emergence of challenges that are increasingly global in nature, and given the irreducible contingency of state borders, it would seem that justice must become global justice: justice that takes shape through a legal order that holds for all of humanity and everywhere. But is justice for all and everywhere possible? At issue, in this question, is not a rearguard defense of the state and state law. Instead, the question concerns the globality of global law and global justice. Is any legal order possible, global or otherwise, that organizes itself as an inside without an outside, that is, which is all-inclusive? A prima facie candidate for such an order is the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Yet careful consideration of the scope of the Rome Statute shows that it cannot realize global justice as criminal justice without excluding other forms of justice, for example restorative justice, thereby both recognizing and misrecognizing the victims of the crimes the International Criminal Court is called on to investigate and prosecute. Humanity is inside and outside the Rome Statute's invocation of 'the international community as a whole.' Because it organizes itself as an inside vis-à-vis an outside, the Rome Statute, like all global law and justice, is local law and justice. If, as this article argues, the inside/outside contrast is constitutive for any imaginable legal order, it also draws on the asymmetries of processes of collective recognition to articulate a concept of global justice that is neither universalist nor particularist, neither all-encompassing nor relativistic.

The Activation of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression: The Edifice is Completed

The Activation of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression: The Edifice is Completed

Формирование юрисдикции Международного уголовного суда в отношении преступления агрессии

This research article examines the activities of the international community for inclusion in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court a number of amendments, concerning the fixation of the definition of the crime of aggression and the establishment of the Court’s jurisdiction over the international wrongful act. In a view of disputes between the states in the adoption of the Rome Statute concerning the definition of this international crime, set up a special working group whose objective was the development of a project for amendments in the Statute. After a long work at the international conference in the Ugandan capital – Kampala, the Member States of the Rome Statute were considered the amendments to be made to the Statute of the International Criminal Court for its greater efficiency. In considering these amendments were also taken into account the fact that not all states ratified the Rome Statute, respectively, for their adoption it was necessary to consider the national interests of these states. Despite the fact that the introduction of the amendments regarding the crime of aggression was deferred for a certain period, their adoption will strengthen the system of international justice. However, the article notes that it is important to consider the national interests of the states exercising the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression. This aspect concerns the extradition of persons accused of committing serious international crimes, especially the crime of aggression. In a view of the fact that, in accordance with the constitutions of most States, including the Russian Federation, not allowing the extradition of its citizens to the international judicial authorities, as a result, there is a conflict between the provisions of the Rome Statute and national law of several states. Thus, to prevent the crime of aggression and the development of liability rules for it, it is necessary to maintain joint action between states and international judicial organs.

Collapsing Legitimacy: How the Crime of Aggression Could Affect the icc’s Legitimacy

The International Criminal Court (icc) will gain the capacity to prosecute the crime of aggression in 2017. The Amendments to the Rome Statute are the product of a political compromise and have a complex legal structure with a high definitional threshold for an act of aggression alongside a bespoke jurisdictional arrangement. This legal structure is likely to mean that very few acts of aggression are considered crimes. Even when acts of aggression pass the threshold set out in the amendments, it is highly likely that any such prosecution would not succeed. This article argues that this is likely to significantly impact the legitimacy of the icc as an organization. To understand this, it is necessary to look at the different meanings of legitimacy before examining how the way in which the law is configured could undermine the political legitimacy of the organization as a whole.

The Disposable Nature: The Case of Ecocide and Corporate Accountability

According to the Rome Statute there are four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. However, there is another widespread crime which deserves the same amount of attention: the crime of ecocide. Ecocide in inextricably linked with corporate activity. This article looks into the widespread destruction of the natural environment, or ecocide, by corporations and researches if and how they can be held accountable under international law. It furthermore addresses if ecocide should be adopted as an International Crime.

国家の「侵略行為」を前提とする「侵略犯罪」の主体:―「侵略犯罪」の実行行為の「コントロール」基準による画定の検討を中心に―

国家の「侵略行為」を前提とする「侵略犯罪」の主体:―「侵略犯罪」の実行行為の「コントロール」基準による画定の検討を中心に―

Justiciability, Complementarity and Immunity: Reflections on the crime of aggression

Some 70 years after the first and, so far the only, criminal prosecutions pertaining to the ‘supreme international crime’ took place, the activation of the – long dormant – jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the crime of aggression appears imminent. At the time of writing, 32 States Parties had ratified the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression, thus exceeding the 30 ratifications required under Articles 15bis and 15ter of the ICC Rome Statute (RS). The moment of truth will arrive somewhere after 1 January 2017, when the Assembly of States Parties will need to adopt a decision affirming the Court’s jurisdiction. As the activation of Articles 8bis, 15bis and 15ter RS is drawing nearer, the debate over the prosecution of the crime of aggression has again taken off with renewed vigour. Against this background, the present essay revisits the suggestion that the crime of aggression is inherently non-justiciable, on the one hand, as well as the critique that the activation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression will have a detrimental effect by inspiring (highly politicized) prosecutions of alleged ‘aggressors’ before the national courts of third States, which are moreover incompatible with the par in parem axiom.

The Nature of Leadership in the Crime of Aggression: The ICC’s New Concern?

Since the Nuremberg trials, it has been accepted that only the highest echelon of state leadership can be responsible for the crime of aggression. The crime of aggression is distinguished from other core crimes under the International Criminal Court’s (icc) purview by, inter alia, its leadership nature. According to Articles 8bis(1) and 25(3bis) of the Rome Statute, only a person ‘in a position effectively to exercise control over or direct the political or military action of a State’ can be held responsible for aggression. The ‘control or direct’ standard was adopted at the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala in 2010 and differs from the customary counterpart (‘shape or influence’) established by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (nmt). This article will explore how the leadership clause has evolved and whether the new standard is more appropriate for the icc.

Victims of the Crime of Aggression

The International Criminal Court confers significant rights on victims that suffer harm as a result of crimes within its jurisdiction. But the crime of aggression differs from other crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction: its protected objects are State sovereignty and international peace. Individuals do not have an affected legal interest in respect of this crime. This chapter examines whether the definition of ‘victim’ in rule 85 of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence can or should apply to individuals and States with respect to the crime of aggression. It concludes that individuals can qualify as victims of the crime of aggression, since the term ‘harm’ in rule 85(a) does not require an affected legal interest. Individuals who suffer harm from this crime may accordingly apply to participate in the proceedings and seek reparations from the convicted person. This chapter also concludes that the definition of ‘victim’ under rule 85(b) could be liberally interpreted to include States. It further outlines relevant policy considerations and the practical implications of such recognition.

ПОНЯТТЯ ДЕРЖАВНОГО СУВЕРЕНІТЕТУ В МІЖНАРОДНОМУ ПРАВІ

In the article is studied of concept ≪state sovereignty≫, his international legal properties and features of conception of state sovereignty in an international law on the modern stage. The special value undertaken a study acquires in connection with a loss Ukraine of sovereignty above separate parts of territory of Ukraine. Given the international legal acts, which contain legal opinion of the events of 2014 in Crimea. The legal envisaged concept of state sovereignty is absent in an international law formally. The analysis of doctrine approaches of lawyers-specialists in international law is conducted to the concept ≪state sovereignty≫. The analysis of legal literature witnessed, that a concept ≪state sovereignty≫ in an international law is characterized by next signs: political and legal independence, value as primary international legal subject; needed for exceptional supremacy of state power and envisages insubordination of power of other state; conditioned by legal equality of the independent states and is in basis of modern international law. State sovereignty is characterized international legaland internal aspects. Under the external aspect of sovereignty is understood independent of other subjects of international law. The internal aspect of territorial supremacy means the right of the state exercise its authority within its territory Sovereign equality is a concept, what derivant from a concept ≪sovereignty≫. But in most international legal acts, the concept of ≪state sovereignty≫ is used primarily in combination with the principle of territorial integrity of states. Principle of territorial integrity essentially comes forward as a major backer-up of state sovereignty, as exactly territory is an obligatory sign of any state, sphere of action of his sovereignty. The concept of state sovereignty in international law is based on the principles of international law, primarily the non-use of force and threat of force in international relations, the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, inviolability of borders and territorial integrity of states. At the national level, appropriate to speak of sovereignty as a property of the state, and at the international level, the principle of respect for state sovereignty. Thus, state sovereignty remains the base of the international legal system. The most serious crime against state sovereignty in an international criminal law is a crime of aggression. In the framework of international law, it is expedient to develop more effective mechanisms for the protection of state sovereignty, taking into account the need to protect it from contemporary forms of manifestation of an international crime ≪aggression≫, which is accompanied by information, trade, as well as ≪hybrid≫ wars.

Клинико-психологические факторы криминальной агрессии

The article substantiates approach to the study of crime of aggression, taking into account the analysis of the behavior principles of interaction of personal and situational factors; interaction of aggressive and antiaggressive personal factors. Three-dimensional typology of crime of aggression formed three axles: high – low aggressiveness; formation – aborted personal aggression inhibitors; neutral – a legally significant traumatic situation. This typology has been verified on the basis of empirical material, including 329 people (257 males and 72 women aged 18 to 70 years) charged with violent crimes. All of the defendants (33 % mental health 67 % – with a variety of mental disorders not excluding sanity) were examined in the production of a comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination. A cluster analysis of the subjects (Ward's method) showed the validity of the choice of three bases of a typology of criminal aggression. The most powerful discriminator of types of aggression were personal inhibitors of aggression, less severe factors of high aggressiveness and characteristics of the situation. Identified correlations between various mental disorders and types of aggression.

Aggression as an international crime

The jurisdiction of the permanent International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression is due to activate during 2017. As the voting of the members of the Court?s Statute gets closer, critiques to its competence to prosecute aggression grow stronger, which is at the same time confusing and counterproductive. Those not at all negligible voices state that only Security Council can properly decide if an act of aggression was committed, that the aggression is a non-justiciable political crime, that the two-step procedure of ICC in its deliberations on aggression is contrary to a rule of consent of the state to judicial proceedings, that the possible overflow of proceedings will initiate national prosecutions toward third states and its officials which would endanger international legal rules on states and officials immunity from foreign jurisdiction. The author argues that all these critiques are either wrong in their views or overlook the fact that their views can easily be put against other international crimes which do not, however, suffer from their attacks. It is obvious that historical landmark of future criminal prosecutions for the development of international law and the stability of the international community is downgraded. The author concludes that, notwithstanding numerous problems that accompany it, the conception of aggression from the Statute of International Criminal Court will benefit the general prevention of unlawful uses of force in international relations and will diminish impunity for the ?crime of all crimes?.

Book Review: Individual Criminal Liability for the International Crime of Aggression

Book Review: Individual Criminal Liability for the International Crime of Aggression

Judicial Cases in China in 2015

According to the annual report of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of China, cases heard and concluded by the SPC experienced an unprecedented rise in 2015, which amounted to 15,985 and 14,135 respectively, an increase by 42.6 per cent and 43 per cent respectively from corresponding numbers in 2014.1 As another report prepared by the SPC Research Office shows, for the same year, the people’s courts2 accepted 17.66 million cases and concluded and enforced 16.714 million cases, an increase of 22.81 per cent and 21.1 per cent respectively from the previous year.3 The growth rate of the number of accepted and concluded cases was almost three times that of 2014 and reached a ten-year record high. There were 1.12 million criminal cases heard by people’s courts, 1.099 million of which were concluded at first instance, and 1.232 million criminals were convicted—an increase of 8.29 per cent, 7.45 per cent, and 4.06 per cent respectively.4 Cases involving violent crimes were in decline, including homicide (10,187 cases), intentional injury (122,209 cases), rape (21,252 cases), kidnapping (787 cases), and explosion (131 cases), which decreased by 5.81 per cent, 3.04 per cent, 9.39 per cent, 24.54 per cent, and 18.13 per cent respectively.5 Cases involving crimes of disrupting the order of financial administration, financial fraud, and illegal pyramid selling increased dramatically. For example, the local people’s courts accepted 4,825 cases on illegal deposit taking from the public, which was an increase of 127.38 per cent, and 1,018 cases on unlawful and fraudulent fundraising, which was an increase of 48.83 per cent.6 The number of drug-related crimes cases also increased dramatically, while criminal cases relating to pornography had a minor increase. The local people’s courts accepted 141,999 drug-related crimes cases, an increase of 30.79 per cent, and accepted pornography criminal cases amounting to 13,700, an increase of 10.87 per cent.7 There were 49,000 criminals convicted in cases involving embezzlement and bribery, in which 134 of the criminals were at an administrative level of a bureau director or higher.8 Local courts at various levels also heard and concluded 6,221 cases on fraud committed through the Internet and the crime of picking quarrels and making trouble; 5,446 cases on the crimes of abducting, trafficking in, and sexually abusing women and children; and 1,084 cases on crimes of aggression against the country and launching violent terrorist attacks.9