Second Thoughts on the Crime of Aggression

Abstract

The article is a critique of the proposal for the codification of the crime of aggression by the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. It concentrates on four main pointsthe inherent indeterminacy of the definition of aggression, its uncertain application to recent cases concerning the use of force, the involvement of the Security Council in the exercise of jurisdiction, and, finally, the danger of concentrating issues of jus in bello and jus contra bellum in one single court or tribunal. The contribution concludes that the time is not ripe for a codification of the crime of aggression at a time at which the Court is still struggling to establish itself.

Roma Statüsü Kapsaminda Saldiri Suçu Ve Tek Tarafli İnsani̇ Müdahaleni̇n Kapsam Dişinda Kalmasi

“…Andreas Paulus, the Chairman of Public and International Law at the Georg-August-University Göttingen, claims that this consensus is "artificial" because the current threshold issues and qualifiers make the definition a "dead letter." (Paulus, 2010(Paulus, : 1118(Paulus, -1124. Although the contention in this article is not that pessimistic, it is clear that because of the ambiguity in the definition, it is hard, if not impossible, to argue that the ICC may have jurisdiction over certain acts of aggression including humanitarian intervention.…”

How Aggressive Is China?

“…The Nuremberg Charter of 1945 deals aggression in Article 6 (a), which defined crimes against the peace as including the 'planning, preparation, or waging of a war of aggression' (Paulas 2009(Paulas , 1119(Paulas -1120.…”

What is Aggression?: Comparing the Jus ad Bellum and the ICC Statute

“…78 Paulus, referring to the definition of 'manifest' in the Oxford English Dictionary ('clearly revealed to the eye, mind, or judgment; ::: obvious'), pointed out that '[w]hat ::: is obvious for one is completely obscure to the other, in particular in international law'. 79 Potter commented that 'manifest' refers to clear or obvious violations and that the obvious nature of the violation can be established by looking at the scale, gravity and character of the violation. 80 'Manifest' adds nothing, therefore, but confusion.…”