Crime Of Aggression Research Articles

An Examination of Crimes under the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an international judicial body established to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for major international crimes, playing a significant role in delivering justice globally. International crimes are defined as acts that are so severe and widespread that they transcend domestic boundaries, posing a threat to international peace and security. Consequently, the importance of addressing such crimes becomes evident as it establishes the foundation for achieving global justice. In this context, the primary research question is which crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC? The author's hypothesis posits that the ICC, as an international institution, seeks to fulfill justice within the framework of global justice. To address this question and explore the hypothesis, an analytical-explanatory methodology, in conjunction with library-based resources, was employed. The findings indicate that the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression enables it to contribute to international criminal justice by investigating and prosecuting those responsible, thereby addressing the impunity for these offenses. The ICC complements national judicial systems and intervenes only when countries are either unwilling or unable to prosecute these crimes.

Sustainability in the prosecution of the crime of aggression: reflections in the wake of Russia’s initiation of a war of aggression against Ukraine*

The long period of sidelining the crime of aggression in the international legal policy discourse is over. On the contrary, in the wake of Russia’s initiation of a war of aggression against Ukraine, there is strong and widespread rhetoric in international politics suggesting that a critical moment in history has been reached with respect to the prosecution of the crime of aggression. However, to ensure the sustainability of such prosecutions, powerful rhetoric is not enough. As regard the resolve to match words with deeds, the odds are still out. At the time of writing, it remains an open question whether a critical number of State leaders will be prepared to rise to the historical challenge before them and eventually pave the way for sustainable prosecution of the crime of aggression. The crucial test is whether States Parties to the ICC Statute are ready, within the immediate future, to overcome the debilitating jurisdictional restraints that govern the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine: Legality and Legitimacy of Domestic Prosecutions in Third States

The crime of aggression is an international crime that for various legal, political and practical reasons can be difficult to successfully and legitimately prosecute at the domestic level against nationals of aggressor or third states. This article considers the legality and legitimacy of domestic prosecutions initiated by third states regarding the crime of aggression against Ukraine and the role that the newly established International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression could have in increasing the legitimacy not only of domestic prosecutions by third states, but of the future Special Tribunal as well.

Prosecution of The Crime of Aggression in International and Ukrainian Jurisdiction: Challenges and Prospects

This article explores the genesis of Russian aggression against Ukraine, tracing its origins from the unprovoked illegal invasion initiated in February 2014 to the full-scale invasion in 2022. Despite initial international responses, the lack of significant sanctions against Russia or efforts to prosecute its leaders for the crime of aggression persisted until the 2022 invasion. The international community’s condemna tion of the brutality accompanying this invasion underscored the need for accountability mechanisms within the existing international legal framework. However, limitations in prosecuting aggression within the International Criminal Court, coupled with chal lenges in amending the Rome Statute, have led to proposals for an ad hoc mechanism to address aggression gaining traction. These proposals highlight the urgency of holding aggressors accountable and safeguarding victims’ rights. Concurrently, Ukrainian ju risdiction incorporates the concept of the crime of aggression in its Criminal Code but lacks clarity on essential elements necessary for prosecuting such crimes, including the leadership element. An analysis of court verdicts reveals discrepancies in interpreting the crime of aggression, emphasising the necessity of adopting a unified approach that is consistent with international law. The article underscores the critical importance of enhancing legal frameworks, building capacity and encouraging international cooper ation to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression and to preserve the rule of law.

International Centre of the Prosecution of Russia’s Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine and the Role of New Technologies and Justice Hubs in the Fight Against Impunity

The accountability response to Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine attests to the growing importance of regional accountability frameworks in the fight against impunity. Many Member States of the European Union have taken active steps towards accountability for core international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine by initiating domestic criminal investigations. The creation of centralised justice hubs, such as the International Centre for the Prosecution of Russia’s Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine, can bridge the knowledge gap between different accountability actors involved in international investigations, and additionally contribute towards developing best practices and the universalisation of investigative standards. In this context, new technology infrastructure and expertise play the role of an accelerant, actively contrib-uting to the coordinated fight against impunity and fostering information exchange and collaboration on an increasingly global scale.

Implementation and Interpretation of The Definitions of International Crimes in The National Jurisdiction of Ukraine

The article consists of two parts, the first of which discusses the problems associ ated with implementing the provisions of international law in the Ukrainian legal system regarding the understanding of the concept of “international crimes”. It underscores that the different definitions are due to the fact that Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute. However, it should be noted that most provisions of international law regarding interna tional crimes regarding war crimes, the crime of aggression and the crime of genocide are part of the Ukrainian legal system. At the same time, there are no crimes against human ity in Ukrainian national criminal law. The second part addresses the issues regarding Ukrainian courts’ interpretation of the national criminal law and international treaties on international crimes: interpreting the provisions of United Nations acts and the Rome Statute, applying the principle of “nullum crimen sine lege”in the context of prosecuting the crime of Holodomor, interpreting the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the use of trial in absentia in the case of Russian war criminals and interpreting provisions regarding universal jurisdiction in Ukrainian law.

Domestic and International Criminal Jurisdiction in the Context of the Initiative for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the efforts to prosecute the perpetrators have renewed the debate regarding domestic and international criminal jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Given the inter-state nature of this crime and its link to an act of aggression, the existence of which can be determined by the Security Council, the International Law Commission’s (ILC) relatively restrictive approach to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction prevailed, at least until 2022. Against this background, the discussion regarding the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine has significantly influenced the trajectory of the understanding of general international law concerning individual criminal responsibility for the crime of aggression. The interpretative paths adopted in the mid-1990s are gradually being abandoned. At the same time, an intense ongoing debate concerning the understanding of the phrase “international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction” has not led to any conclusive arrangements. Still, what is known is that there is a certain group of states for which such courts can be created through bilateral agreement between the state concerned and the United Nations, on the recommendation of the UN General Assembly.

What Is “A Certain International Criminal Court” and Does the Choice of A Fully International or Internationalized (Hybrid) Court/Chambers Matter for The Crime of Aggression Committed Against Ukraine?

When the International Court of Justice issued its Arrest Warrant Judgment in 2002, it indicated that personal immunities do not prevent proceedings in front of “certain international criminal courts” and provided three demonstrative examples of such courts. After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine commenced in February 2022, debates ensued regarding the elements necessary to qualify a court within the meaning of the Arrest Warrant Judgment. They particularly concern two types of tribunals (“fully international” and “hybrid / internationalized”). This article suggests that only fully international courts qualify as “certain international criminal courts”, while hybrid tribunals are far too attached to the sovereignty of State(s) to meet its criteria. The determination of a court as hybrid or international is rather fluid however, and the qualification as “a certain international criminal court” depends on various elements (the establishing mechanism; applicable law; and reflection of the will of the international community) in each individual case.

Addressing war crimes in Ukraine: international response, accountability and the path to reparations for violations committed as a result of russian aggression

It is indicated that russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea by the russian federation, has since intensified significantly, especially after the large-scale invasion of russia in February 2022. This armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine led to a serious humanitarian crisis, serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), international criminal law (ICC) and international human rights law (IHRC). The article explores the international legal responses to russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, beginning with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensifying with the full-scale invasion in February 2022. This war has led to severe humanitarian crises and widespread violations of international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and international human rights law. The paper focuses on war crimes, including targeting civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, and the unlawful deportation of children to russia. This article addresses the scientific literature on the war crimes committed by russia against Ukraine and IHL implementation, noting the lack of research on forensic methodologies for war crime investigations in Ukraine. While Ukrainian scholars emphasize integrating international law into national legislation, foreign experts provide more detailed forensic approaches. The study evaluates the actions of international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations, alongside efforts by the European Union and others, to ensure accountability and reparations, with particular focus on the various mechanisms established to address war crimes, human rights abuses, and the path toward reparations and justice for Ukraine. Special attention is given to international initiatives, such as the Atrocity Crime Advisor Group (ACA) and the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression (ICPA), which are crucial in enhancing Ukraine’s ability to prosecute atrocity crimes. The article underscores the need for coordinated international legal and financial support to achieve justice for the victims and rebuild Ukraine.

Sustainability in the prosecution of the crime of aggression: reflections in the wake of Russia’s initiation of a war of aggression against Ukraine

The long period of sidelining the crime of aggression in the international legal policy discourse is over. On the contrary, in the wake of Russia’s initiation of a war of aggression against Ukraine, there is strong and widespread rhetoric in international politics suggesting that a critical moment in history has been reached with respect to the prosecution of the crime of aggression. However, to ensure the sustainability of such prosecutions, powerful rhetoric is not enough. As regard the resolve to match words with deeds, the odds are still out. At the time of writing, it remains an open question whether a critical number of State leaders will be prepared to rise to the historical challenge before them and eventually pave the way for sustainable prosecution of the crime of aggression. The crucial test is whether States Parties to the ICC Statute are ready, within the immediate future, to overcome the debilitating jurisdictional restraints that govern the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

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.