Crime Of Aggression Research Articles

National and international mechanisms for bringing perpetrators to justice for international crimes

The paper notes that despite the devastating consequences of a large number of wars, humanity has not realized that the dispute can be resolved in another way. It is also pointed out that Russia violates the norms of international law. The main crime that will be discussed in the paper is the crime of aggression. The main problem revealed in the paper is the offense committed in connection with the events after February 24, 2022. The purpose of the scientific paper is to highlight the mechanisms that Ukraine can use to bring those responsible to justice for international crimes committed during Russia's military invasion of Ukraine. The main part presents the facts of the crime of aggression before the events of February 24, 2022 and after that date. It is established that in connection with the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine, first, the norms of national law are violated (crimes against peace, security of mankind and international law, crimes against national security of Ukraine). Secondly, norms of international law are violated (in particular, norms of international humanitarian law). It is noted that Ukraine already uses both national and international institutions to record crimes. The facts are given that give grounds for considering the issue of genocide against the Ukrainian people by Russia. It is noted which norms of international law are violated: weapons are used against the civilian population, cultural monuments are destroyed. It is pointed out that the fate of many cities is unknown. The paper provides a definition of the crime of aggression. The paper also states that Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute. The problem of jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is described. It is determined that the idea of creating an international military tribunal is supported by representatives of the leading countries. The conclusions briefly indicate the most important results of the paper.

Qualification of the international legal regime of the territory of Crimea after its seizing by Russia

Various forms of foreign military presence on the territory of the state have been studied, such as occupation, conquest, deployment of foreign military bases, annexation, etc. The features that characterize the legal regimes of occupation and annexation and their international regulation have been identified. Among the signs of occupation is the effective control of the occupier over the territory of another state with the takeover of all functions of government with or without armed resistance, as well as without obtaining sovereign rights to the occupied territory. The consequences of the invariability of the sovereignty of the territory during its occupation have been determined, in particular, a significant difference between the international legal regime of occupation and annexation; continuity of legislation of the occupied state throughout its territory; and the legal representation of the occupied state in international relations by its government in exile. There is also a difference between the regime of occupation and the presence of foreign military bases or peacekeeping forces on the territory of the state. Characteristic features of annexation, which is currently one of the crimes of aggression, include the unilateral declaration of state sovereignty over a territory not yet included, as well as the legitimacy of annexation through de facto ownership and international recognition of this fact. Under international law, there is no legal mechanism for the transfer of sovereignty over territory to the aggressor through annexation. However, the shameful practice of de facto annexations after the Second World War proves the weakness of institutions and the ineffectiveness of the system of preventive and reactive measures to unconditionally ensure compliance with international law. The main difference between occupation and annexation is the preservation or loss of state sovereignty over the territory, captured by the aggressor. The international legal regime of Crimea at different stages after the invasion of Russian troops on its territory has been determined

Aberrations monstrueuses dans la doctrine juridique roumaine sur la situation en Ukraine

The doctrinal opinions claiming that, in the Ukraine vs. Russian Federation Case, the International Court of Justice's provisional measures order finds evidence of acts of genocide perpetrated in Ukraine, or that the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction for the crime of aggression because the Rome Statute gives no definition of the crime of aggression are scientific aberrations.

Aggression in International Law: The Crime of a State and Criminal Responsibility of an Individual

The paper covers unlawful use of force in international law by states to explore the general concept and definition of aggression in the law of state responsibility and for criminal responsibility of individuals. The genesis of the concept of aggression in the XX century is analyzed. The paper describes problems that arose in defining the aggression that accompanied the efforts to ban any threat of force and the use of force by international law provisions, which was over with adopting the United Nations Charter in 1945. The responsibility of a State for the internationally wrongful act in question was accompanied by the criminal responsibility of individuals for the same international crime. The analysis of cases before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and the analysis of the work of the United Nations Security Council, reveal their practice in terms of which of the above authorities has priority in finding State responsibility? Equally, we seek to identify the weaknesses concerning the definition of aggression adopted as an expression of political compromise in Annex to the 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution, and whether the 2010 Kampala definition contained in the amendments to the Rome Statute may be considered inadequate in trying of the International Criminal Court to fight impunity and to participate in the prevention of future crimes of aggression through its work and actions. Ultimately, is the aggression any threat or violation of international peace and security by the state? If aggression is a true-crime of a State, does that mean that only the state's highest officials will be criminally responsible for the crime in question?

Personality Disorder in Cognitive Distortions of Prison Inmates for Crimes of Aggression and Violence

The objective of the study was to determine the influence of personality disorders on the cognitive distortions of the aggressor. The research methodology was carried out under a quantitative approach, type of basic study, hypothetical deductive method, the technique was the survey and the questionnaire was the instrument for personality disorders (IPD E) and for cognitive distortions (IPDMUV-R). ). The results showed that the personality disorder influences 100% of the cognitive distortions. In that sense, the personality disorder is determined by the dimensions for a better relationship with distorted thoughts. It is concluded that cognitive distortions are characterized by frequently presenting psychological alterations due to personality disorders, lack of control over anger, difficulties in expressing emotions, deficits in communication skills, problem solving and low self-esteem.

MANIFESTASI PRINSIP MORAL DALAM PEMBENTUKAN PENGADILAN PIDANA INTERNASIONAL

The establishment of the International Criminal Court is an answer to the view of natural law regarding past events where to try the perpetrators of serious crimes against human rights an ad hoc international criminal court was formed which violates the provisions that have been considered rigid as law by positivists. In view of natural law, the provisions referred to in the Rome Statute are formed which are the basis for the establishment of an international criminal tribunal that has the authority to try perpetrators of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. According to adherents of natural law theory, natural law doctrines will always color and inspire positive law, so that positive law always goes on the right track, both when laws are made, implemented and when used by judges in deciding cases in court. Natural law offers options through its higher-trusted rules. In this case the law of nature will function as an opposition to a tyrannical government (repeated often in history). The laws of nature are also dual in nature. At one end its function is to protect the rights, freedoms and independence of individuals, at the other end in a country, natural law as the embodiment of the highest value functions as a cry for a nation's integrity, in which operational forms of social solidarity, the common good, the public interest or social consensus.

Cruel Intentions: Liberal Logics and Processes of International Criminalization

Abstract The prohibition and prosecution of core international crimes are understood as a liberal response to particularly cruel acts that shock the conscience of humanity. But what is the nature of this cruelty and how does it relate to liberalism? Rather than seeing liberalism as monolithic, we examine the different relationships between liberal logics and cruelty and how they manifest in processes of international criminalization. We develop a three-pronged typology of liberalism(s) based on their constitutive relationship to cruelty. The first logic expands upon Judith Shklar's theory of “Liberalism of Fear” that sees cruelty as detrimental to liberal society, foregrounding particularly acute forms of physical and affective cruelty in liberal politics and law; the second logic, “Racial Liberalism,” understands cruelty as a condition of possibility for the liberal order built on the exploitation of racialized others; and the third conceives of cruelty as produced by the market logic of trade-offs, referred to as “Sacrificial Liberalism.” Based on this framework, we examine two processes of international criminalization: the crime of genocide (widely considered to be the “crime of crimes” and thus an emblematic case of criminalized cruelty directed against collective identities) and the crime of aggression (which followed a more complicated criminalization trajectory). By tracing how different liberal logics interrelate, come into tension, and thus shape the processes of international criminalization, we not only illuminate the shifting legitimations and normative priorities of the liberal international order but also confront the normative value of criminalizing cruelty.

The crime of aggression as a violation of the rights of one’s own population

ABSTRACT In its traditional understanding, aggression is a crime against state. A number of scholars have, by contrast, increasingly framed the wrong of aggression as lying in its devastating consequences for the populations affected. That emergent human rights framing, however, has largely focused on the population of the other state. This article seeks to go beyond this nascent human rights framing of aggression, by looking at the possibility that waging an illegal war can also be interpreted as a violation of the rights of a state’s own population, including both combatants and non-combatants. In doing so, we seek to reconnect the argument against aggression to domestic human rights themes involving the responsibility of the sovereign towards persons within its jurisdiction. We suggest that this approach can help produce a more normatively grounded and textured account of the grounds for proscribing war that better connects both domestic and international legal conversations.

Crime of aggression and humanitarian intervention

The article explores the possibility of prosecuting for the crime of aggression of persons who use force in humanitarian purposes (humanitarian intervention). As a result of the consideration of the main features and the study of the legal nature of humanitarian intervention, as well as the features of the crime of aggression, the author concludes the definition of the crime of aggression excludes humanitarian intervention. However, in the author’s opinion, some of the humanitarian intervention cases should be considered as a crime of aggression.

Aggression and Responsibility Under International Law – A Case of the Aggression of the Russian Federation Against Ukraine

The aim of this article is to address the relationship between aggression, conceived both as an act of a state and as a crime, and responsibility for it under the law in the light of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. The Russian Federation as a state committed an act of aggression as the internationally wrongful act for which it is responsible under customary international law, while members of its authorities, headed by the president, perpetrated a crime of aggression, as defined in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The author argues that as far as the act of the Russian aggression is concerned not only Ukraine but also other states may make Russia responsible for its act of aggression. As the Russian Federation seriously breached of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law any state may claim from Russia, first, cessation of the internationally wrongful acts, and assurance and guarantees of non-repetition and, second, performance of the obligation of reparation in the interest of Ukraine or of the beneficiaries of the obligation breached. Although international law has not traditionally recognized individuals as victims of the crime of aggression, one should have in mind that not only states but also individuals are victims of the aggression. This is why individuals as victims of the Russian aggression may, even should, participate in the future regimes of criminal responsibility and reparation in the context of prosecutions for this crime. But it will be depended on the determination and good will of the members of the international community and, obviously, on the indictment of suspects. The author claims that a full restoration of peace in Ukraine will not take place if Russia is not held responsible for its wrongful act of aggression and the perpetrators of crimes committed during this armed conflict, including the crime of aggression, are not brought to criminal responsibility.

Humanitarna intervencija u kontekstu zločina agresije iz člana 8bis Rimskog statuta

Even though it does not represent a new concept in international law, the notion of humanitarian intervention still causes numerous controversies when it comes to its content and applicability. Since this institute is tightly related to situations characterized by the use of force in international relations, the potential application of the institute of humanitarian intervention belongs to the domain of international criminal law, particularly in reference to the crime of aggression from Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute, which criminalizes the use of force outside of the boundaries set by the UN Charter. This article attempts to provide an answer to the question whether humanitarian intervention, if it were accepted as part of international customary law, can affect the application of the Rome Statute. In addition to the analysis of the significance of humanitarian intervention when it comes to the establishment of the elements of the crime of aggression, the article will point out the scope of this institute pertaining to the bases for the exemption from criminal responsibility according to the Rome Statute, referencing potential defence strategies in cases that could take place before the International Criminal Court.

МІЖНАРОДНО-ПРАВОВІ ПІДСТАВИ ВИЗНАННЯ РФ ДЕРЖАВОЮ-СПОНСОРОМ ТЕРОРИЗМУ ТА ПОКАРАННЯ ЗА ВЧИНЕННЯ ЗЛОЧИНУ АГРЕСІЇ ТА ВОЄННИХ ЗЛОЧИНІВ НА ТЕРИТОРІЇ УКРАЇНИ

In connection with armed aggression, violation of a range of international treaties, customary norms of international law, commission of acts of terrorism, many questions arise about the status of the state-sponsored terrorism and criminal prosecutions of the perpetrators of the offense. The purpose of this research is to examine and cover current issues of recognizing the Russian Federation as a state-sponsored terrorism and bringing to individual criminal responsibility the military-political leadership for the crime of aggression and war crimes. The research is based on such methods as analysis, synthesis, generalization and comparison, formal-logical and analytical methods. The analysis and researches of the legal grounds in international law for the recognition of the Russian Federation as a state-sponsored terrorism were carried out, along with general provisions of individual criminal responsibility for crimes against international customary law. Doctrinal approaches to granting status and a definition of the concept of "state-sponsored terrorism" were contemplated and formed respectively, the categories for granting that status are emphasized and the recognition of the Russian Federation is justified by means of the analysis of requirements and documented cases and incidents of unlawful acts committed by Russia. The provisions of the Text of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of the ILC, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism are covered, as well as the prospects for recognition as a state-sponsored terrorism by the UN Security Council and the imposition of economic sanctions. The study reveals the issues of criminal responsibility of individuals, namely the military and political leadership of the Russian Federation for the crime of aggression and combatants, other persons for war crimes. The concept of crime of aggression and war crimes is defined, the accusations of the Russian Federation of waging an aggressive war of conquest and committing war crimes in accordance with the categories and summary of the reports of independent missions of international organizations are justified and grounded. Having exemined the provisions of international legal instruments, reports and statements of international organizations that were conducted in Ukraine on the fact of unlawful actions of the Russian Federation, several practical advices on the international legal recognition of Russia as a state-sponsored terrorism was developed and the concepts of creating a special tribunal for the crime of aggression were proposed and noted the prospective of the punishment and criminal responsibility of war criminals.

‘Supreme International Crime’ or ‘Paper Tiger’? On the Crime of Aggression, Accountability Gaps, and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

‘Supreme International Crime’ or ‘Paper Tiger’? On the Crime of Aggression, Accountability Gaps, and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

NECESSITY AND DIFFICULTIES TO ESTABLISH A REPRESSIVE SYSTEM FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE DRC

More than 600 well-documented crimes have been identified in the Democratic Republic of Congo during the armed conflicts that have raged there since 1993 to the present day. Crimes against humanity, serious violations of international humanitarian law, crimes of aggression, crimes of genocide, and terrible human rights violations have been committed. The perpetrators of these crimes must be brought to justice and punished so that the victims of these crimes can be restored to their rights and the Congolese social fabric can be rebuilt. There is no need to dream of an international criminal court for the Congo created under the auspices of the Security Council. The majority of its permanent members are involved. The trial and punishment of any criminal is the discretionary competence of the State or States acting in a sovereign manner. To better achieve this objective, it is important to take stock of the Congolese law enforcement system and to conclude whether or not it is capable of punishing the perpetrators of international crimes in the DRC. Taking into account the number of suspects to be judged and the almost non-existence of specialists in international criminal law in the country, it would be appropriate to resort to international criminal justice, either at the universal or regional level. The creation of a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, both at the national and regional levels, will facilitate the political and social reconstruction of the State and promote popular cohesion.

Ukraine’s cooperation with International Criminal Court as a mechanism for holding russia accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine

Ukraine’s cooperation with International Criminal Court as a mechanism for holding russia accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Creating a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Would Be a Danger to the Future of International Criminal Law

Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Creating a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Would Be a Danger to the Future of International Criminal Law

The Crime of Aggression of Uganda against Rwanda: the Starting Point of the Spiral of International Crimes in Africa of Great Lakes

The Crime of Aggression of Uganda against Rwanda: the Starting Point of the Spiral of International Crimes in Africa of Great Lakes

К ВОПРОСУ О ВОЗМОЖНОЙ МЕЖДУНАРОДНО-ПРАВОВОЙ КВАЛИФИКАЦИИ КИБЕРАТАК В КАЧЕСТВЕ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЯ АГРЕССИИ И МЕЖДУНАРОДНОГО ТЕРРОРИЗМА

The article examines the political and legal aspects of the possible qualification of cyberattacks as acts of aggression and international terrorism. It is noted that cyber threats, which in the modern conditions of the development of the information and digital environment are considered in many national security doctrines as new challenges that threaten not only national interests, but also international law and order. It is concluded that modern trends in the development of international relations, taking into account the current state of scientific and technological progress, demonstrate the possibility of qualifying cyberattacks as acts constituting a crime of aggression or international terrorism.

Who is Afraid of the Crime of Aggression?

Abstract There is no question that deterring the illegal use of force is a noble goal. Unfortunately, the crime of aggression, heralded as a major accomplishment when adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, is but a pale shadow of the kind of criminal prohibition that might have convinced would-be aggressors that they will be held accountable for their belligerent acts. Instead, as this article explains, the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court is so jurisdictionally narrow, so substantively limited, and so unlikely to promote domestic prosecutions that its deterrent value is essentially non-existent. Moreover, danger abounds in the very act of activation — the danger that victims (state and individual) might assume that the era of impunity for aggression is coming to an end. Nothing could be further from truth.

Cyber-Attack: Its Definition, Regulation, and ASEAN Cooperation to Handle with it

The development of technology brings changes in human life, and the shift of most human activities to cyberspace is now a challenge for every country in the world. Cyber-attacks are crimes that have developed rapidly with the development of information communication and technology (ICT). Due to its impact, cyber-attacks can be considered as a crime called a crime of aggression. The focus of this paper is to determine the urgency of regulating cyberattacks as a crime of aggression and to find out the extent to which the international community has made cybercrime the focus of contemporary crime research, which is referred to as a crime of aggression. This paper shows that international cooperation is needed to create an international regime that is respected and universally accepted by the international community in relation to cyber-attacks, which can also be referred to as crimes of aggression. It is because cyber-attacks in its nature are transnational crimes and need a cooperation such as the framework of ASEAN to deal with.