PDF
FLIP
HTML
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Abstract
The criminalization of aggression, which is diametrically opposed to the notion of state sovereignty, has remained in a state of suspended animation until recently. Effective starting on July 17, 2018, the International Criminal Court has been empowered to try individuals for the crime of aggression. Although achieving this feat is commendable in itself, there is no denying the fact that the definition adopted under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute is outmoded. Being a synthesis between the provisions of two outworn documents of the 20th century, namely the Nuremberg Charter (1945), on the one hand, and the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974), on the other, Article 8 bis seems ill-equipped for the purpose of handling new-age challenges brewing in the
21st century. The author has attempted to summarize the evolution of the crime of aggression as a prelude to presenting a case for the need to adopt a far more inclusive definition within the scheme of Article 8 bis, i.e. taking into consideration the exigencies of the 21st century emanating from (a)
non-traditional means of warfare, such as cyberwarfare; (b) non-state entities, such as terrorist groups; and (c) internal acts of aggression.
Keywords:
References
Ambos, Kai. The crime of aggression after Kampala, 53 GYIL 463, (2010).
Bachmann, Dov Sascha and Gerhard Kemp, Aggression as 'Organized Hypocrisy' How the War on Terrorism and Hybrid Threats Challenge the Nuremberg Legacy, 30 (1) Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 235, (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1871912
Bantekas, Illias. International Criminal Law, 4th ed. (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2010).
Cassese, Antonio. International Criminal Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2008).
Control Council for Germany, Control Council law no. 10 (1945).
Diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries on the establishment of an international criminal court, Rome (June 16, 1998).
Draft resolution of the Assembly of States Parties on the continuity of work in respect of the crime of aggression, United Nations (2002). https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N02/472/04/PDF/N0247204.pdf?OpenElement
Ferencz, B. Benjamin. Can Aggression Be Deterred by Law, 11 Pace Intl L. Rev. 341, (1999).
International Criminal Court, Assembly activates courts jurisdiction over crime of aggression, International Criminal Court (Press release, Dec. 15, 2017). https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr1350
International Military Tribunal for the Far East, charter (19th Jan 1946). http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.3_1946%20Tokyo%20Charter.pdf
Kittichaisaree, Kriangsak. International Criminal Law, 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, 2001).
McGuinness, Damien. How a cyber attack transformed Estonia, BBC, (Apr. 27, 2017). https://www.bbc.com/news/39655415
Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, United Nations. http://legal.un.org/icc/prepcomm/prepfra.htm
Resolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.6, International Criminal Court (2009), https://asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/ICC-ASP-8-Res.6-ENG.pdf
Resolution RC/Res.6, United Nations (2010). https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (entered into force July 1, 2002).
Scheffer, David. The Missing Pieces in Article 8 bis (Aggression) of the Rome Statute, 58 Harv. Int'l L.J. 83, (2017). http://www.harvardilj.org/2017/04/the-missing-pieces-in-article-8-bis-aggression-of-the-rome-statute/
Statute of the International Military Tribunal (8 Aug. 1945, 82 UNTS (1951), 280).
The United States of America vs. Wilhelm von Leeb et al, US Military Tribunal Nuremberg, (1948).
The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09. https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir
Trial of the Major War Criminals, International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg (Vol. 1, 1947). https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-I.pdf
United Nations General Assembly, Resolution.3314 (XXIX) Definition of Aggression, United Nations (Dec. 14, 1974), http://www.un-documents.net/a29r3314.htm
Werle, Gerhard and Florian Jessberger, Principles of International Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Reference by
