The Crime of Aggression, Domestic Prosecutions and Complementarity

Wrange, Pål

doi:10.1017/9781316694220.023

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is very little support in practice or in the literature for a duty to prosecute aggression. 67 If the claim in paragraph 70 is correct, this conclusion requires qualification. To be precise, that qualification is not that international law requires states to prosecute of aggression per se.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THEJUS AD BELLUM: BELLIGERENT EQUALITY AND THE DUTY TO PROSECUTE ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Jackson¹,

Akande²

2022

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General Comment 36 of the Human Rights Committee, adopted in 2018, asserts that ‘States parties engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto article 6 of the Covenant.’ One question about this claim is whether it reduces incentives for compliance with international humanitarian law for States and their agents—incentives provided through the principles of belligerent equality and combatant immunity. It is argued that it does not do so—such a worry about incentives is not a reason to reject the claim in General Comment 36. In the process, it can also be shown that, if accepted, this claim is interesting in another way: it entails, in effect, a duty on States to prosecute acts of aggression insofar as they entail killing, as they often will. This itself is doctrinally innovative. As to who is to be prosecuted, it is the political and military leadership of the State. It is their decision to wage war unlawfully that renders the killings arbitrary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THEJUS AD BELLUM: BELLIGERENT EQUALITY AND THE DUTY TO PROSECUTE ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Jackson¹,

Akande²

2022

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…82 In a similar vein, several scholars argue that despite the ILC's suggestion to the contrary, domestic courts remain competent to prosecute the crime of aggression. 83 While a finding that a State has committed an act of aggression indicates a violation of international law, the finding itself has no immediate legal consequences for the alleged aggressor State. 84 The increasing number of States criminalizing aggression in national laws further supports this view.…”

Section: A the Inapplicability Of The Monetary Gold Doctrine To Domes...mentioning

confidence: 99%

State Immunity and Third-Party Limits on the Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts

Franchini

2023

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.

show abstract

The Crime of Aggression, Domestic Prosecutions and Complementarity

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THEJUS AD BELLUM: BELLIGERENT EQUALITY AND THE DUTY TO PROSECUTE ACTS OF AGGRESSION

THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THEJUS AD BELLUM: BELLIGERENT EQUALITY AND THE DUTY TO PROSECUTE ACTS OF AGGRESSION

State Immunity and Third-Party Limits on the Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About