The ‘End’, the ‘Beginning of the End’ or the ‘End of the Beginning’? Introducing Debates and Voices on the Definition of ‘Aggression’

Abstract

On 11 June 2010, the first Review Conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted Resolution RC/Res. 6 on the ‘Crime of Aggression’ by consensus, after years of debates and negotiations in the framework of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court and the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. The resolution includes a definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime, while making the actual exercise of jurisdiction ‘subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017’ by states parties. This outcome has triggered a broad variety of reactions. The UN praised it as a ‘historic agreement’ and a significant step towards a new ‘age of accountability’. Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed concerns that the compromise deepens the gaps between states and leaves accountability loopholes. US legal advisor Harold Koh qualified the compromise as an opportunity for further constructive dialogue and positive engagement with the ICC.

Victims of the Crime of Aggression

“…This may ultimately run against the purpose and mandate of the court.' 203 Recognising States as victims under rule 85(b) would not be in the spirit of the restorative justice provisions of the Rome Statute. These provisions are primarily directed towards addressing the suffering of the 'millions of children, women and men [who] have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity'.…”

How Aggressive Is China?

“…That is, 'at least eighty-four delegations of legal advisors and experts from States Parties to the Rome Statute' agree that this definition of aggression is clear (Trahan 2012, 909). The uniformity with which law journal articles on the subject define 'aggression' and outline the concept's pedigree, as well as the substantial similarities between codified definitions of 'aggression' (See Solera 2010, 803-804), suggests that the definition supplied in the United Nations A/RES/29/3314 is the generally accepted, baseline definition of aggression (O'Connell & Niyazmatov 2010;Stahn 2010;Mancini 2012;Trahan 2012). Stahn (2010) makes reference to A/RES/29/3314, as do Mancini (2012), Koh and Buchwald (2015), and many more.…”

“…The uniformity with which law journal articles on the subject define 'aggression' and outline the concept's pedigree, as well as the substantial similarities between codified definitions of 'aggression' (See Solera 2010, 803-804), suggests that the definition supplied in the United Nations A/RES/29/3314 is the generally accepted, baseline definition of aggression (O'Connell & Niyazmatov 2010;Stahn 2010;Mancini 2012;Trahan 2012). Stahn (2010) makes reference to A/RES/29/3314, as do Mancini (2012), Koh and Buchwald (2015), and many more. The International Criminal Court adheres to the same concept of aggression, although it differentiates between 'crimes of aggression' attributed to individuals, over which the Court exercises jurisdiction, and 'acts of aggression' that are attributed to whole states (Scheffer 2010;Halpern & Betteridge 2008;Weisbord 2011, 89).…”