Abstract
Aggression was not criminalized before 1945. Throughout centuries, and in all cultures, despite isolated efforts aimed at setting conditions for “lawful” uses of force, rulers and States felt at liberty to resort to force to enforce their political goals. It was only after the Second World War—more precisely, after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, followed by trials under the Control Council Law № 10—that aggression was recognized as a crime under international law. But even then, no more prosecutions for the crime occurred after 1949, for political reasons, despite numerous inter-State uses of force. A revival of the criminalization of aggression came with the adoption, on 17 July 1998, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court where the crime of aggression was listed—along with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes—as one within the jurisdiction of the Court. Twelve more years had elapsed before the States Parties to the Statute agreed upon a definition of the crime of aggression for the purpose of the Statute, and upon the complex procedural conditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the crime. Generally, the chapter serves as a historical introduction to substantive matters dealt with in subsequent chapters of the book, and provides a background for almost any issue of relevant international law raised elsewhere in the volume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
It is submitted that all major “just war” doctrines were essentially different from the landmark twentieth- and twenty-first-century developments in international law in that they actually sought to define “fair” conditions for the occurrence of wars (positive restriction), instead of banning the phenomenon of war as such, with a few strictly defined exceptions (negative restriction). See Neff 2005, pp. 54–68; Werle 2009b, p. 405. Also, see infra 1.1.2.3.
- 4.
Coppieters et al. 2002, p. 25.
- 5.
The Bhavagad Gita 1962, p. 51.
- 6.
The scholarly literature on the jus in bello is abundant. See highlights on the subject in: Artsibasov and Yegorov 1989; Batyr 2006; Best 1994; David 2011; Deyra 2002; Dinstein 2004; Green 1993; Heintschel von Heinegg and Epping 2007; International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law 1988; Kalugin 2006; Kalugin and Akulov 2004; Kalugin et al. 1999; Khakimov 2007; Kotlyarov 2003; McCoubrey and White 1992; Rajabov 2006; Rusinova 2006; Sassóli and Bouvier 2006; Zemmali 1997.
- 7.
For an excellent cross-cultural summary of the definitional features of war, see Neff 2005, pp. 14–29.
- 8.
Ibid., pp. 15–18.
- 9.
Notably, many key categories of international humanitarian law have been devised in plural or denote collectivities—e.g., “the civilian population,” “civilians,” “combatants,” “protected persons,” “prisoners-of-war,” etc.
- 10.
See Neff 2005, pp. 18–20.
- 11.
For example, the launching of the armed conflict in South Ossetia (8–12 August 2008) was sometimes referred to as Georgia’s “aggression”. However, it is submitted that this terminology was inaccurate in the circumstances, since, at the time of the attack, South Ossetia did not de jure constitute a recognized State. See generally International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Report, Volume I (September 2009).
- 12.
See Neff 2005, pp. 20–25.
- 13.
See Kemp 2010, pp. 47–48.
- 14.
Bassiouni 2003, p. 8.
- 15.
Cf. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(1)(d).
- 16.
See Neff 2005, pp. 25–29.
- 17.
See Martens 2008, p. 27.
- 18.
See Neff 2005, pp. 25–29.
- 19.
According to F. F. Martens (1845–1909), “for theoretical, purely a priori reasons, one could not agree that barbarian and ancient peoples knew international law. It suffices to analyze concepts and feelings which prevailed among peoples who were just at the dawn of their histories, and about whom we have quite veritable information, to become convinced of an absolute impossibility to suppose [the existence of] any rational need for a law among these peoples, for a certain order in the sphere of [their] mutual relations.” See Martens 2008, p. 31.
- 20.
Traditionally, Egypt was not regarded as an African civilization, despite its geographical location in Northern Africa, due to its culture’s fundamentally distinctive features. See, for example, Vasilyev 2003, pp. 98–120.
- 21.
Ibid., pp. 121–135.
- 22.
Accidentally discovered in 1887 by a peasant woman in Tell el-Amarna, the Correspondence consists of some 360 cuneiform tablets with records of communications between Pharaohs of XVIII dynasty (1550–1292 BC) and rulers of neighboring kingdoms. The Correspondence is held at the British Museum in London and the Staatsmuseum in Berlin.
- 23.
Potemkin 1941, pp. 18–20.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 22.
- 25.
Ibid., p. 21.
- 26.
Ibid., p. 22.
- 27.
Ibid., pp. 21–22.
- 28.
Ibid., p. 23. See also Vasilyev 2003, pp. 124–127.
- 29.
See Vasilyev 2003, pp. 136–153.
- 30.
- 31.
See Malyavin 2002, p. 54.
- 32.
Ibid., p. 45.
- 33.
Ibid., pp. 45–46.
- 34.
Ibid., p. 18.
- 35.
Ibid., pp. 18–19.
- 36.
Ibid., p. 29.
- 37.
Ibid.
- 38.
See generally Sun Tzu 2005. Although it is widely believed that Sun Tzu (or Sun Wu) lived in the seventh century BC, there is no unity among scholars as to when the book attained its canonical shape. According to some historians, it dates back to the sixth–fifth centuries BC. According to others, the treatise was completed no earlier than in the second half of the fifth century. However, most of the contemporary scholars suggest that the text could have been completed around the first half of the fourth century BC.
- 39.
See Malyavin 2002, p. 56.
- 40.
- 41.
Harro von Senger reports examples of Niccolo Machiavelli, Napoleon, Richard Nixon, Joseph Stalin, and other notable statesmen who were using stratagems in their decision-making.
- 42.
- 43.
See Potemkin 1941, p. 33.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Ibid.
- 46.
Ibid.
- 47.
- 48.
See Martens 2008, p. 32.
- 49.
O. Zhidkov thus comments on the organization of an ancient Greek polity: “From the point of view of its internal organization, an ancient polity was a closed State outside which there remained slaves, strangers and even natives of other Greek polities. To citizens themselves, [their own] polity was a kind of political microcosm with its proper […] forms of political organization, traditions, customs, law, etc.” See Zhidkov and Krasheninnikova 2001, p. 132.
- 50.
See Martens 2008, p. 38.
- 51.
Ibid.
- 52.
Ibid.
- 53.
F. Martens names among such factors the mutual recognition of at least some fundamental rights of each other’s citizens, and a nationwide influence exercised by the Delphic Sibyl and the Olympic Games. See Martens 2008, p. 42.
- 54.
See ibid.
- 55.
Potemkin 1941, pp. 41–42, 49.
- 56.
Ibid., pp. 50–55.
- 57.
See Martens 2008, p. 33.
- 58.
See ibid.
- 59.
See ibid., p. 48.
- 60.
Ibid., pp. 52–53.
- 61.
Ibid., p. 53.
- 62.
Ibid., p. 56.
- 63.
Ibid., p. 57.
- 64.
Ibid., pp. 62, 64.
- 65.
See Vasilyev 2003, pp. 232–247.
- 66.
See generally Anderson 1976; Al-Azmeh 1988; Al-Qaradawi 1985; Behruz 2011, pp. 270–301; Calder 1993; Coulson 1964; Edge 1996; Hallaq 1997; Khadduri 1966; Legais 2009, pp. 246–264; Mallat 1993; Rahmanov and Rahmanov 2003; Rosen 1989; Ruthven 2006; Saidov 1994, 2000, pp. 296–310; Schacht 1964; Weeramantry 1999.
- 67.
See Davis 2011, pp. 59–72; Hashmi 2002, pp. 194–216; Ilesanmi 2011, pp. 27–36; Johnson 2011, pp. 37–49; Malekian 2011, pp. 30–32, 171–191; March and Modirzadeh 2013, pp. 367–389; Oba 2002, pp. 817–850; Oh 2011, pp. 50–58; Samad 2011, pp. 84–108; Sardar Ali and Rehman 2005, pp. 321–343; Shah 2013, pp. 343–365.
- 68.
See Malekian 2011, pp. 30–32.
- 69.
Ibid., pp. 178–190.
- 70.
Ibid., pp. 193–223.
- 71.
Notably, Jews and Christians were not considered “infidels” but belonged to the category of kitabi—“people of the Book”—with whom Muslims were called upon to maintain a peaceful intercourse.
- 72.
En-Nawawi 1992, p. 457.
- 73.
Ibid, p. 458.
- 74.
Ibid.
- 75.
Ibid.
- 76.
Ibid.
- 77.
- 78.
On ideological tensions between Islam and Christianity, see generally Spencer 2005.
- 79.
See Article 1 of the Charter of the Organisation of Islamic Conference: “The objectives of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference shall be: 1. To enhance and consolidate the bonds of fraternity and solidarity among the Member States; 2. To safeguard and protect the common interests and support the legitimate causes of the Member States and coordinate and unify the efforts of the Member States in view of the challenges faced by the Islamic world in particular and the international community in general; 3. To respect the right of self-determination and non-interference in the domestic affairs and to respect sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each Member State; 4. To support the restoration of complete sovereignty and territorial integrity of any Member State under occupation, as a result of aggression, on the basis of international law and cooperation with the relevant international and regional organisations; […] 8. To support and empower the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination and establish their sovereign State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, while safeguarding its historic and Islamic character as well as the Holy places therein; […] 11. To disseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation and tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage; 12. To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilizations and religions; […] 14. To promote and to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms including the rights of women, children, youth, elderly and people with special needs as well as the preservation of Islamic family values; […] 16. To safeguard the rights, dignity and religious and cultural identity of Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States; 17. To promote and defend unified position on issues of common interest in the international fora; 18. To cooperate in combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, organized crime, illicit drug trafficking, corruption, money laundering, and human trafficking […].”
- 80.
See Khadduri 1956, pp. 358–372.
- 81.
- 82.
See Ratti and Westbrook 2006, p. 25.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 27.
- 84.
Ibid.
- 85.
Quoted ibid., pp. 27–28.
- 86.
Quoted ibid., p. 28.
- 87.
Ibid., p. 32.
- 88.
See Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan (promulgated on 3 November 1946, came into force on 3 May 1947): “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” The text is available at: http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html (last accessed 17 November 2012).
- 89.
- 90.
See Neff 2005, p. 54.
- 91.
Ibid.
- 92.
See ibid., pp. 54–55.
- 93.
See ibid., p. 55.
- 94.
See Coppieters et al. 2002, p. 33.
- 95.
See ibid.
- 96.
Quoted ibid., p. 48.
- 97.
Ibid. See also Barthelemey 1904, p. 11. F. de Vitoria’s opinion suggests an appealing parallel to the present-day understanding of States’ inherent right to individual or collective self-defence.
- 98.
Coppieters et al. 2002, p. 48.
- 99.
Ibid. See also De Vattel 1863, p. 368.
- 100.
See Weber 1990, p. 645.
- 101.
See Coppieters et al. 2002, pp. 65–86.
- 102.
Nick Fotion, Bruno Coppieters and Ruben Apresyan list 16 typical intentions, or motivations, which have been moving people to go to wars throughout history (see ibid., pp. 87–88):
-
to kill and plunder (barbarian wars);
-
to become famous in a war (knightly wars);
-
to realise commercial interests (trade wars);
-
to implement a colonial expansion (colonial wars);
-
to conquer other States’ territories and resources (wars of conquest);
-
to attain goals of a religion (crusades and religious wars);
-
to implement structural or political changes within a country (civil wars);
-
to break off a State or to prevent secession (secessionist wars);
-
to export revolution to other countries (revolutionary wars);
-
to regain territories lost in previous wars (wars to restore the status quo);
-
to take revenge for an injustice (retributive wars);
-
to defend a country against aggression (wars of selfdefence);
-
to prevent a possible aggression in the future (preventive wars);
-
to make a pre-emptive strike (pre-emptive wars);
-
to help a State which has become victim of an aggression (wars in defence of other States);
-
to help a people who are threatened by genocide or other grave or mass human rights violations (humanitarian intervention).
-
- 103.
Ibid., pp. 87–112.
- 104.
Ibid., pp. 113–128.
- 105.
Ibid., pp. 129–140.
- 106.
Ibid., p. 37.
- 107.
Ibid., pp. 141–167.
- 108.
Ibid., pp. 142–143.
- 109.
Ibid.
- 110.
- 111.
For an English translation of the book, see Grotius 1853.
- 112.
See ibid., pp. 1–8.
- 113.
Ibid., p. 453.
- 114.
For brief illustrations of this classification, see ibid., pp. xxv–xxvii. The details of those various types of law are offered throughout H. Grotius’ book.
- 115.
Martens 2008, p. 138.
- 116.
- 117.
- 118.
Martens 2008, pp. 78–82.
- 119.
- 120.
Kissinger 1994, p. 79.
- 121.
Ibid.
- 122.
L. Willmot, “Introduction”, in Von Clausewitz 1997, p. ix.
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.
Ibid., pp. 333–336.
- 126.
Ibid., p. 3.
- 127.
Ibid., p. 24. See also Werle 2009b, p. 405.
- 128.
Ibid.
- 129.
See Rybachenok 2005, p. 16.
- 130.
Ibid.
- 131.
Ibid.
- 132.
It is not clear who exactly was the author of the idea to convene the First Peace Conference. According to some sources, it originated from a report by Russia’s War Minister Alexey N. Kuropatkin to Emperor Nicholas II (1868–1918) of 28 February (12 March) 1898, on the expedience of concluding a treaty with Austria regarding a mutual limitation of armaments. According to others, it was the Finance Minister Sergey Y. Witte (1849–1915) who discussed with the Foreign Minister M. N. Muraviev the harmful effects of ever-increasing armaments. According to Professor F. F. Martens, it was a counsellor to the Russian Embassy to Hungary A. K. Basil and his secretary, M. G. Priklonsky, who had addressed a memo on the principles of international arbitration to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, and this memo attracted the attention of a senior Foreign Ministry advisor V. N. Lamsdorf who authored an according policy proposal, which was presented to the Emperor’s attention on 31 March (12 April) 1898. See Rybachenok 2005, pp. 17–30.
- 133.
Ibid., p. 35.
- 134.
Ibid., pp. 53–54.
- 135.
The conference was attended by delegations of Austro-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Persia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. See Rybachenok 2005, pp. 131–132.
- 136.
The conference agenda followed the structure of a circular note dispatched by Russia’s Foreign Minister to Ambassadors accredited in Saint-Petersburg on 30 December 1898, which suggested, in particular, the following items:
-
(1)
the freezing of current numbers of servicemen in the land and marine armed forces and of military budgets, and a preliminary consideration of means for reducing the said armed forces and budgets in the future;
-
(2)
the prohibition to introduce in armies and fleets of new types of firearms and explosives, as well as of stronger types of gunpowder than ones currently in use;
-
(3)
the limitation of using in wars on land of destructive explosives currently in existence, as well as the prohibition of dropping explosives from balloons or of using them in other similar manners;
-
(4)
the prohibition of using in wars at sea of submarines carrying mines or of other similar devices; the obligation not to construct, in the future, warships equipped with rams;
-
(5)
the application of the 1864 Geneva Convention, as supplemented in 1868, to wars at sea;
-
(6)
the recognition of neutrality, on the same grounds, of ships and boats involved in rescuing the shipwrecked during or after battles at sea;
-
(7)
the revision of the 1874 Brussels Declaration on the laws and customs of war, which was not yet ratified;
-
(8)
the adoption of rules for an appropriate application of good offices, mediation and voluntary arbitration, for the purpose of preventing armed confrontations between States, as well as reaching an agreement on ways of using these means and establishing uniform practices thereof. See Rybachenok 2005, pp. 299–302.
-
(1)
- 137.
For reasons of space, the progress of the conference is not discussed here. For an overview, see Rybachenok 2005, pp. 126–163.
- 138.
Baron Staal’s concluding speech was published in the “Birzhevye vedomosti” [“The Stock Exchange Newsletter”] newspaper of 23 July (4 August) 1899.
- 139.
See Convention (I) for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (29 July 1899); Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899); and Convention (III) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864 (29 July 1899).
- 140.
See on the Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons (29 July 1899); Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases (29 July 1899); and Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body (29 July 1899).
- 141.
See Rybachenok 2005, p. 164.
- 142.
- 143.
See American Society of International Law 1907a, pp. 431–440; American Society of International Law 1907b, pp. 945–954; De Bustamante 1908, pp. 95–120; Hill 1907, pp. 671–691; Hull 1908, pp. 731–742; Malanczuk 1997, pp. 22–23; Scott 1908a, pp. 78–94; Scott 1908d, pp. 1–28; Stowell 1908, pp. 50–62; Werle 2009b, p. 405.
- 144.
See Convention (I) for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (18 October 1907); Convention (II) Respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts (18 October 1907); Convention (III) Relative to the Opening of Hostilities (18 October 1907); Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (18 October 1907); Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (18 October 1907); Convention (VI) Relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities (18 October 1907); Convention (VII) Relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-ships (18 October 1907); Convention (VIII) Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines (18 October 1907); Convention (IX) Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (18 October 1907); Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention (18 October 1907); Convention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War (18 October 1907); Convention (XII) Relative to the Creation of an International Prize Court (18 October 1907, not ratified); Convention (XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (18 October 1907). The Conference also adopted a Declaration Extending Declaration II from the 1899 Conference to Other Types of Aircraft and a Declaration on Obligatory Arbitration.
- 145.
- 146.
- 147.
According to statistics provided by Henry Kissinger, in 1920, France had a population of 41 million, while Germany’s was 65 million, which statistics made the French statesman Aristide Briand (1862–1932) to answer critics of his appeasing policy toward Germany with the argument that he was pursuing the foreign policy of France’s birth rate. See Kissinger 1994, p. 228.
- 148.
Again, according to H. Kissinger, Germany’s economy was boosting: in 1913, France produced 41 million tonnes of coal compared with Germany’s 279 million tonnes; by the late 1930s, the disparity grew to 47 million tonnes produced by France against Germany’s total of 351 million tonnes. See Kissinger 1994, p. 228. See also Adamthwaite 1977, p. 4.
- 149.
Kissinger 1994, p. 229.
- 150.
For a contemporaneous view of international affairs at the time, see Kocourek 1918, pp. 498–518.
- 151.
See Avalon Project: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp (last accessed 13 November 2012).
- 152.
W. Wilson, “An Address at Guildhall, 28 December 1918”, in Link (ed.) (1966–), volume 53, p. 532.
- 153.
W. Wilson, “An Address to the Senate, 22 January 1917”, in Link (ed.) (1966–), volume 40, p. 539.
- 154.
On 11 November 1918, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George (1863–1945) thus heralded the conclusion of an armistice between Germany and the Allied Powers: “I hope that we may say that thus, this fateful morning, come to an end all wars”. Quoted in Taylor 1965, p. 114.
- 155.
Schabas 2004, pp. 19–22. M. Cherif Bassiouni points to much earlier examples, such as the trial of Conradin von Hohenstaufen in 1268 and Peter von Hagenbach in 1474, although he acknowledges that links between these experiences and modern developments are rather difficult to establish. See Bassiouni 2003, pp. 23–24.
- 156.
- 157.
- 158.
Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the German Delegation and the Conditions of Peace, Paris, 16 June 1919, HMSO, Misc. No 4 (1919).
- 159.
- 160.
The French original of this response is quoted in Schabas 2004, p. 21.
- 161.
- 162.
See Neff 2005, pp. 279, 293.
- 163.
See ibid., p. 285.
- 164.
Ibid.
- 165.
- 166.
Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 12: “1. The Members of the League agree that if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the report by the Council. 2. In any case under this Article the award of the arbitrators shall be made within a reasonable time, and the report of the Council shall be made within six months after the submission of the dispute.”
- 167.
Germany was virtually excluded from Europe’s political life until the conclusion of the 1925 Locarno Treaties (see infra 1.1.6.4).
- 168.
On Germany’s reparations after the First World War, see Temperley 1920, pp. 40–91.
- 169.
- 170.
Cf. Williamson 2009, p. 83.
- 171.
In 1923, the League of Nations comprised 54 States. See National Membership of the League of Nations: http://www.indiana.edu/~league/nationalmember.htm (last accessed 13 November 2012).
- 172.
See Commentary on the Definition of a Case of Aggression, Records of the Fourth Assembly (1923), Meetings of Committees, Minutes of the Third Committee, pp. 206–208, referred to in Williamson 2009, p. 83.
- 173.
League of Nations, Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 2 October 1924. Online. UNHCR Refworld, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/40421a204.html (accessed 15 May 2012), 3rd preambular paragraph.
- 174.
Ibid., 5th preambular paragraph.
- 175.
See Potemkin 1945, pp. 311–312.
- 176.
See ibid., p. 313.
- 177.
See ibid.
- 178.
Ibid. See also Bassiouni and Ferencz 2008, p. 210.
- 179.
International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment of 1 October 1946, p. 446.
- 180.
See Potemkin 1945, p. 327.
- 181.
Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty read as follows: “The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.”
- 182.
Quoted in Potemkin 1945, p. 328.
- 183.
See ibid., pp. 328–332.
- 184.
Ibid., p. 328.
- 185.
Ibid., p. 331.
- 186.
See National Membership of the League of Nations, supra note 171. See also Potemkin 1945, p. 333.
- 187.
The “Rhineland Pact” obliged its States Parties to respect the territorial status quo set out in the Versailles Treaty, more specifically—the inviolability of frontiers laid down in that Treaty between, respectively, Germany and Belgium and Germany and France (Article 1), and required them not to use military force against each other, except in cases of legitimate self-defence or collective measures under Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (Article 2). All matters of dispute were to be settled by means of arbitration or in the framework of truce commissions. In Articles 4 and 5, sanctions against violator States were outlined. See Potemkin 1945, pp. 331–332.
- 188.
Interestingly enough, the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal (see infra 3.1.1) did not deal separately with Germany’s war against France unlike it did with her aggression against some other European States, the USSR and the USA.
- 189.
See Potemkin 1945, p. 331.
- 190.
Ibid., p. 333. See also Werle 2009b, p. 406.
- 191.
See Potemkin 1945, pp. 334–338.
- 192.
On Germany’s aggression against the USSR, see infra 3.1.1.6. In this context, a remarkable statement by Charles de Gaulle (1890–1970) is worth recalling: “Treaties are like roses and young girls: they are preserved as long as they are preserved”. Quoted in Lukashuk 2008, p. 121. Cf. Fenwick 1952, pp. 296–298.
- 193.
For text, see the Avalon Project: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm (last accessed 13 November 2012).
- 194.
In this context, the term unilateral is used to denote a use of force by a State (or a group of States united by the same war aims) against another State or group of States outside the collective guarantee regime set up under Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
- 195.
See generally Kellogg 1928, pp. 253–261.
- 196.
Ibid., pp. 254–256, 258.
- 197.
Ibid., p. 258.
- 198.
Ibid., pp. 258–259.
- 199.
Ibid., p. 259.
- 200.
Ibid., pp. 259–260.
- 201.
Ibid., p. 260.
- 202.
See Article I of the Kellogg-Briand Pact: “The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”
- 203.
See Borchard 1929a, pp. 126–131; Borchard 1929b, pp. 116–120; Cryer 2005, p. 242; Fenwick 1932, pp. 787–789; Kunz 1951b, pp. 46–48; Finch 1933, pp. 725–732; Hill 1928, pp. 823–826; Hyde 1928, pp. 262–269; Hyde 1941, pp. 117–118; Von Mandelsloh 1933, pp. 617–627; Schlüter 1942, pp. 24–32; Werle 2009b, pp. 406–407; Wilson 1932, pp. 327–328; Wilson 1936, pp. 80–83; Wright 1932, pp. 362–368; Wright 1933, pp. 39–61.
- 204.
Gerhard Werle notes that the Kellogg-Briand Pact was adhered to by 63 of 67 States which existed at the time (except Argentina, Bolivia, El Salvador and Uruguay). See Werle 2009a, p. 479, especially note 27. See also Bilfinger 1940, pp. 1–23; Boye 1930, pp. 766–770; Clark 1917, pp. 790–793; Myers 1948, pp. 320–354.
- 205.
- 206.
Quoted ibid.
- 207.
Quoted ibid., at p. 212.
- 208.
As the 1933 draft definition noticeably resembles, both in its structure and content, the 1974 Definition of Aggression adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (see infra 2.3), one might assume that the latter document’s drafters must have been inspired by the earlier text.
- 209.
- 210.
Cf. Bassiouni and Ferencz 2008, p. 212.
- 211.
- 212.
See Bathurst 1945, p. 568.
- 213.
- 214.
Kochavi 1998, p. 97.
- 215.
United Nations War Crimes Commission 1948, pp. 100–101.
- 216.
Schabas 2004, 24.
- 217.
See “Report of the Sub-Committee appointed to consider whether the preparation and launching of the present war should be considered ‘war crimes’”, Doc. C55, 27 September 1944.
- 218.
See “Minority Report presented by Dr. B. Ecer on the question whether the preparation and launching of the present war should be considered as crimes being within the scope of the United Nations War Crimes Commission”, Doc. C56, 27 September 1944.
- 219.
Schabas 2004, p. 26.
- 220.
- 221.
- 222.
- 223.
See generally Fenby 2006.
- 224.
See Zelinskaya 2006, pp. 416–418.
- 225.
- 226.
- 227.
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 6(a): “Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing”.
- 228.
Bassiouni 2003, p. 409.
- 229.
Report of Robert H. Jackson (1949), pp. vii–viii.
- 230.
- 231.
Both the Indictment and the Judgment of the Tribunal confirm this distinction between the elements of three crimes and explain that “[t]he “Common Plan or Conspiracy” charged in the Indictment covers twenty-five years, from the formation of the Nazi Party in 1919 to the end of the war in 1945”, while planning and waging the wars in question constituted separate undertakings. See International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment of 1 October 1946, p. 447.
- 232.
Ibid., p. 441.
- 233.
One may legitimately ask here, in somewhat surprised a manner, whether a war of the Second World War’s magnitude and cruelty could not have formally been characterized as one of aggression, if it had been “properly” (in the sense of applicable Hague Conventions) declared and legally motivated, and would therefore have been excluded from the Charter’s scope of ratione materiae applicability. Since the answer obviously is in the negative, one should conclude that a definition of aggression, should one have been produced for the purpose of the Nuremberg Tribunal, must have included other—or further—definitional elements.
- 234.
The Tribunal refrained from considering which of the aggressive wars against 12 nations were at the same time wars in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, for it satisfied itself with the conclusion that “certain of the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars […] and were therefore guilty of this series of crimes.” See International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment of 1 October 1946, p. 442.
- 235.
- 236.
Dahm 1961, p. 292.
- 237.
Tomuschat 2006, p. 834.
- 238.
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Article 5(a): “Crimes against peace: namely, the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a declared or undeclared war of aggression, or a war in violation of international law, treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.” See Brown 1939, pp. 538–541; Fenwick 1937, pp. 694–696; Kemp 2010, pp. 94–98.
- 239.
See Hisakazu 2011, p. 7.
- 240.
The proclamation laid down that “the constitution, jurisdiction and functions of this Tribunal are those set forth in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, approved by me today”. See Special Proclamation by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, 19 January 1946, quoted in Werle 2009a, p. 12, note 52. See also Safferling 2012, pp. 18–19.
- 241.
- 242.
- 243.
For the sake of objectivity, it may be noted that Judge Radhabinod Pal’s dissenting opinion might not have been without a political bias, for he was known as a sympathiser of the Indian National Army (INA), an Indian faction which collaborated with Japan with a view to liberating India from British colonization. See Takeshi 2011, pp. 127–144, and Cryer 2005, p. 243.
- 244.
Article 13(a) of the Tokyo Charter read: “All purported admissions or statements of the accused are admissible”.
- 245.
See “Judgment of Mr Justice Pal, Member from India,” reprinted in Röling and Rüter 1977, at p. 629.
- 246.
Ibid., p. 1037.
- 247.
Ibid., p. 1035.
- 248.
On the use of nuclear weapons, see Akande 1998a, pp. 165–217; Borchard 1946, pp. 161–165; Brown Firmage 1969, pp. 711–746; D’Amato 1967, pp. 66–77; Falk 1965, pp. 759–793; Falk 1997, pp. 64–75; Garvey 2008, pp. 339–357; Matheson 1997, pp. 417–435; Skordas 2001, pp. 191–224; Thomas 1945, pp. 736–744; Turlington 1946, pp. 165–167.
- 249.
- 250.
- 251.
- 252.
The initial members of the Control Council were Marshal Georgy Zhukov (1896–1974) for the Soviet Union, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery (1887–1976) for the United Kingdom, General Dwight Eisenhower (1890–1969) for the United States, and General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny (1889–1962) for France.
- 253.
For an account of the Control Council’s activity, see generally Ziemke 1990.
- 254.
For example, as far as the definition of crimes against humanity were concerned, there was no more requirement in Article 2 of the Law for a link between crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, or war crimes.
- 255.
Control Council Law № 10, Official Gazette Control Council for Germany, No. 3, 31 January 1946, pp. 50 et seq., Article II(1)(a).
- 256.
- 257.
For an overview of trials with respect to crimes against peace, see Heller 2011, pp. 179–202.
- 258.
See Aust 2005, pp. 223–232; Briggs 1947, pp. 433–435; Briggs 1957, pp. 517–529; Chakste 1948, pp. 590–600; Clark 2011, pp. 337–342; Eagleton 1945, pp. 751–754; Falk 2003, pp. 590–598; Finch 1945, pp. 541–546; Frowein 1976, pp. 147–167; Kelsen 1945, pp. 45–83; Kemp 2010, pp. 104–108; Köchler 2006, pp. 323–340; Kunz 1952b, pp. 504–508; Lim 2007, pp. 307–328; Pellet 1995, pp. 401–425; Ratner 1995, pp. 426–444; Schachter 1994, pp. 1–23; Shaw 2008, pp. 1204–1281; Wilson 1970, pp. 139–143.
- 259.
For an analysis of the Charter-based exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force, see infra 2.4.1.
- 260.
According to M. Cherif Bassiouni, no less than 250 armed conflicts took place since 1945, which have claimed an estimated 170 million lives. See Bassiouni 2003, pp. 91–92, note 142.
- 261.
See generally Hoffmann 1995.
- 262.
UN Charter, Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.
- 263.
See Neff 2005, p. 317.
- 264.
Neff 2005, pp. 319–322. Actually, Stephen Neff singled out five legal implications of Article 2(4), the fifth one being the possibility of criminal prosecutions for aggression by the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo as well as the subsequent trials under Control Council Law № 10. Yet, this conclusion seems somewhat questionable, because all of those trials occurred parallel to and relatively independently of the UN Charter. The Charter did not serve as these Tribunals’ legal basis, their respective Judgments were not interpretative of the Charter but only of the pre-existing international law, and, last but not least, the Charter did not concern itself with the legal standing of individuals under international law and with issues of individual criminal responsibility. It was rather an instrument for the regulation of the conduct of States as Members of a (newly established, at the time) universal international organization. Another sort of conclusion would have probably been more accurate—that the Charter has substantially modified the ratione materiae source of the law of crimes against peace, i.e., public international law’s provisions on the use force, and that any future criminal prosecutions for the crime of aggression (if there had been any) should of necessity have taken account of the Charter’s relevant provisions. This proposition will be argued further in this volume.
- 265.
- 266.
See supra 1.1.6.2, especially note 165 and accompanying text.
- 267.
See Neff 2005, pp. 319–320.
- 268.
Ibid., p. 320. See also Lauterpacht 1968, pp. 58–68.
- 269.
See Meiertöns 2010, pp. 83 et seq.
- 270.
- 271.
- 272.
See Neff 2005, pp. 322–325.
- 273.
On the powers of the Security Council, see Alvarez 1996, pp. 1–39; Blokker 2005, pp. 1–29; Bowett 1994, pp. 89–101; Eagleton 1946, pp. 513–533; Hulsroj 2002, pp. 59–93; Österdahl 2005, pp. 1–20; Saul 2005, pp. 141–146; Schachter 1964, pp. 960–965; Schrijver 2007, pp. 127–138; Ward 2003, pp. 289–305; Wellens 2003, pp. 15–70.
- 274.
See Young and Kent 2004, pp. 146–152.
- 275.
Ibid., p. 573.
- 276.
- 277.
Young and Kent note that even friends of the USSR, such as India, were critical over the invasion. In the absence of a negative qualification by the Security Council, it was condemned by the UN General Assembly by 104 to 18 votes. See Young and Kent 2004, p. 493.
- 278.
See Security Council Resolution 660 (1990).
- 279.
Cf. UN Charter, Article 27(3): “Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under para 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”.
- 280.
- 281.
As Christine Gray notes, condemnations by the Security Council and the General Assembly occurred mostly with respect to States which were, in some sense, seen as “outlaws” under international law—for example, Portugal, Southern Rhodesia, Israel, South Africa, and Indonesia. See Gray 2008, p. 21.
- 282.
UN Charter, Article 103: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”.
- 283.
See ICC Statute, 9th preambular paragraph.
- 284.
See Gray 2008, p. 9.
- 285.
UN General Assembly Resolution 290 (IV), 1 December 1949.
- 286.
- 287.
See Houben 1967, pp. 703–736.
- 288.
See Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua case), ICJ Reports (1986), para 188; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports (1996), para 70.
- 289.
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/42/22, 18 November 1987.
- 290.
See Gray 2008, p. 9.
- 291.
Ibid., pp. 9–10.
- 292.
See, for example, UN General Assembly Resolution 38/10, 11 November 1983; UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3212 (XXIX), 1 November 1974; UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/38/7, 2 November 1983.
- 293.
See document ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999.
- 294.
On the role of the International Court of Justice, see generally: Alexandrov 2006, pp. 29–38; Andrassy 1958, pp. 1–23; Bedjaoui 2006, pp. 1–27; Briggs 1959, pp. 301–318; Brown 1959, pp. 195–244; Brownlie 1998, pp. 703–730; Carlston 1950, pp. 728–737; Condorelli 1995, pp. 388–400; Golsong 1971, pp. 673–696; Gordon 1965, pp. 794–833; Gross 1971, pp. 253–326; Gross 1972, pp. 479–490; Harris 2004, pp. 50–53, 1027–1088; Hudson 1948, pp. 630–632; Hudson 1957, pp. 569–573; Jennings 1987, pp. 3–16; Lawson 1952, pp. 219–238; Malanczuk 1997, pp. 281–293; McWhinney 2006, pp. 3–13; Münch 1961, pp. 221–248; Reisman 1969, pp. 1–27; Schachter 1960, pp. 1–24; Schwelb 1972, pp. 337–351; Shaw 2008, pp. 1057–1117; Tanzi 1995, pp. 539–572; Thirlway 2005, pp. 15–28; Yee 2005, pp. 393–416.
- 295.
- 296.
See Gray 2008, p. 14.
- 297.
Nicaragua case (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), ICJ Reports (1984), para 94.
- 298.
See Gray 2008, p. 15.
- 299.
See ibid., p. 16. See also Nicaragua case (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), supra note 297, paras 90, 95.
- 300.
See Gray 2008, p. 16.
- 301.
Nicaragua case (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), supra note 297, para 98, quoted in Gray 2008, p. 16.
- 302.
- 303.
See Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 11 June 1998, ICJ Reports (1998), Judgment on the merits of 10 October 2002, ICJ Reports (2002).
- 304.
See Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of 12 December 1996, ICJ Reports (1996), Judgment on the merits of 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports (2003).
- 305.
See Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of’ Iran v. United States of America), Order of 22 February 1996, ICJ Reports (1996), p. 9.
- 306.
See Legality of the Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. France), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Spain) (Provisional Measures), Order of 2 June 1999, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom), Judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports (2004); Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America), (Provisional Measures), Order of 2 June 1999, ICJ Reports (1999).
- 307.
See Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), ICJ Reports (2000).
- 308.
See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi), Application of 23 June 1999.
- 309.
See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Application of 23 June 1999.
- 310.
See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports (2005).
- 311.
See Case Concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 2011, ICJ Reports (2011).
- 312.
- 313.
An amended edition of the report was issued in 1995. See, generally, Boutros-Ghali 1995.
- 314.
Ibid., para 15: “Our aims must be:
-
To seek to identify at the earliest possible stage situations that could produce conflict, and to try through diplomacy to remove the sources of danger before violence results;
-
Where conflict erupts, to engage in peacemaking aimed at resolving the issues that have led to conflict;
-
Through peace-keeping, to work to preserve peace, however fragile, where fighting has been halted and to assist in implementing agreements achieved by the peacemakers;
-
To stand ready to assist in peace-building in its differing contexts: rebuilding the institutions and infrastructures of nations torn by civil war and strife; and building bonds of peaceful mutual benefit among nations formerly at war;
-
And in the largest sense, to address the deepest causes of conflict: economic despair, social injustice, and political oppression. It is possible to discern an increasingly common moral perception that spans the world’s nations and peoples, and which is finding expression in international laws, many owing their genesis to the work of this Organization.”
-
- 315.
Ibid., para 23.
- 316.
Ibid. For details, see paras 24–33.
- 317.
Cf. Statute of the International Law Commission, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 174 (II) of 21 November 1947, as amended by resolutions 485 (V) of 12 December 1950, 984 (X) of 3 December 1955, 985 (X) of 3 December 1955 and 36/39 of 18 November 1981, Article 1. The Statute is available at the official ILC website: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/statute/statute_e.pdf (last accessed 13 November 2012).
- 318.
For texts, instruments and final reports issued by the Commission, see the official ILC website: http://www.un.org/law/ilc/ (last accessed 13 November 2012). Interestingly enough, the Commission did not consider it appropriate, in late 1940s, to deal with international humanitarian law, allegedly because the Commission believed that that branch of law would no longer be topical, in view of the United Nations Charter’s prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations. See Best 1994, pp. 210–211. It seems to this author, though, that the Commission must have been pragmatic in declining to work on matters of IHL, because the ICRC—the guardian of humanitarian law—possessed a sufficient expertise in the area, and the Commission did not wish to duplicate its functions.
- 319.
- 320.
For a detailed overview of the Commission’s work on the Draft Code, including this and subsequent developments, see the official ILC website: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc//summaries/7_3.htm (last accessed 12 November 2012). See also Kemp 2010, pp. 108–116.
- 321.
General Assembly Resolution 95(I), 11 December 1946.
- 322.
Report of the International Law Commission, 6th Session (1954), II ILC Yearbook, pp. 140, 151.
- 323.
See the official ILC website: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc//summaries/7_4.htm (last accessed 12 November 2012).
- 324.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two), para 46.
- 325.
The 1991 edition of the Draft Code included “aggression”, “threat of aggression”, “intervention,” as well as “colonial domination and other forms of alien domination”, along with ten other types of crimes. See infra 3.1.5.
- 326.
For the text of the Conference’s Final Act, see: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/prepcomm/prepfra.htm (last visited 15 November 2012).
- 327.
ICC Statute, Article 1 (“The Court”): “An International Criminal Court (‘the Court’) is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute”. See generally Ambos 1996, pp. 519–544; Arsanjani 1999, pp. 22–43; Arsanjani and Reisman 2005, pp. 385–403; Aust 2005, pp. 277–282; Bassiouni 2006, pp. 421–427; Blumenson 2006, pp. 797–867; Boister 2003, pp. 953–976; Bottini 2004, pp. 503–562; Cassese 1999, pp. 144–171; Cryer 2005, pp. 57–59, 142–167; Evered 1994, pp. 121–158; Gomaa 2004, pp. 55–77; Graefrath 1990, pp. 67–88; Grover 2010, pp. 543–583; Kirsch 2007, pp. 539–547; Kirsch and Holmes 1999, pp. 2–12; Kirsch and Oosterveld 2001, pp. 1141–1160; Kivalov 2009, pp. 5–18; Leanza 2004, pp. 3–15; Leigh 2001, pp. 124–131; Meron 1998, pp. 18–31; Natarajan and Kukaj 2011, pp. 357–365; Neubacher 2006, pp. 787–799; Safferling 2012, pp. 47–52; Scarf 1994, pp. 103–119; Sunga 1998, pp. 61–83; Tomuschat 1998, pp. 335–347; Tomuschat 2012, pp. 673–681; Wedgwood 1999, pp. 93–107; Zimmermann 1998, pp. 47–108.
- 328.
Ibid., Article 126(1) (“Entry into force”): “This Statute shall enter into force on the first day of the month after the sixtieth day following the date of the deposit of the sixtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations”. See Lijun 2003, pp. 599–622.
- 329.
- 330.
See Ferencz 2007, pp. 551–566.
- 331.
For an overview of the three options, see Leanza 2004, at p. 13.
- 332.
Ibid.
- 333.
See U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/10, Annex I(F). The text of the Final Act is accessible at: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/prepcomm/prepfra.htm (last visited 15 May 2012).
- 334.
- 335.
See Politi 2004, p. 45.
- 336.
Ibid.
- 337.
Ibid. See also Clark 2002, pp. 859–890.
- 338.
See the calendar of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression at: http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/asp/asp%20events/previous%20calendar/calendar%20of%20the%20special%20working%20group%20on%20the%20crime%20of%20aggression?lan=en-GB (last accessed 15 November 2012).
- 339.
Cf. document ICC-ASP/7/SWGCA/2 (20 February 2009), pp. 11–12. See also Cassese 2007, pp. 841–849; Clark 2009, pp. 1103–1115; Kemp 2010, pp. 208–237; Kress 2007, pp. 851–865; Kress 2009, pp. 1129–1146; Murphy 2009, pp. 1147–1156; Paulus 2009, pp. 1117–1128; Sayapin 2009, pp. 157–173; Weisbord 2008, pp. 161–220; Weisbord 2009, pp. 1–68.
- 340.
See Nicaragua Judgment, supra note 288, paras 106 et seq. Also, see infra 2.3.2.
- 341.
Cf. document ICC-ASP/8/Res. 6, 1 (26 November 2009).
- 342.
Cf. document RC/WGCA/1/Rev. 2 (7 June 2010).
- 343.
This is not to say that the draft definition of the crime did not raise any contentions at all during the Conference. See Ambos 2010, at p. 469.
- 344.
- 345.
Ambos 2010, p. 464.
- 346.
Ibid.
- 347.
Ambos 2010, p. 471.
- 348.
Cf. document RC/WGCA/1/Rev. 2, Annex I, No. 3 (footnotes omitted).
- 349.
Ambos 2010, pp. 473–475.
- 350.
Ibid., pp. 475–476.
References
Adamthwaite A (1977) France and the Coming of the Second World War, 1936–1939. Frank Cass, London
Akande D (1998a) Nuclear weapons, unclear law? Deciphering the nuclear weapons advisory opinion of the International Court. BYIL 69:165–217
Akande D (1998b) The competence of International Organizations and the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. EJIL 9:437–467
Al-Azmeh A (ed) (1988) Islamic law: social and historical contexts. Routledge, London
Alexandrov S (2006) The compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: how compulsory is it? Chinese JIL 5:29–38
Al-Qaradawi Y (1985) The lawful and the prohibited in Islam. American Trust Publication, Indianapolis
Alvarez JE (1996) Judging the security council. AJIL 90:1–39
Ambos K (1996) Establishing an International Criminal Court and an International Criminal Code: observations from an International Criminal Law viewpoint. EJIL 7:519–544
Ambos K (2010) The crime of aggression after Kampala. German YIL 53:463–509
American Society of International Law (1907a) The second peace conference of the Hague, Editorial Comment. AJIL 1:431–440
American Society of International Law (1907b) The second peace conference of the Hague, Editorial Comment. AJIL 1:945–954
American Society of International Law (1914) Germany and international peace, Editorial Comment. AJIL 8:881–886
Anderson N (1976) Law reform in the Muslim world. The Athlone Press, London
Andrassy J (1956) Uniting for peace. AJIL 50:563–582
Andrassy J (1958) Betrachtungen über die Zuständigkeit des Internationalen Gerichtshofes. ZaöRV 19:1–23
Arsanjani MH (1999) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. AJIL 93:22–43
Arsanjani MH, Reisman WM (2005) The law-in-action of the International Criminal Court. AJIL 99:385–403
Artsibasov IN, Yegorov SA (1989) Voorujennyy konflikt: pravo, politika, diplomatiya [Armed Conflict: Law, Politics, Diplomacy]. Moscow, International Relations
Aufricht H (1944) Post-war planning and limitation of sovereignty. AJIL 38:119–124
Aust A (2005) Handbook of International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Baldwin SE (1907) The international congresses and conferences of the last century as forces working toward the solidarity of the world. AJIL 1:565–578
Barthelemey J (1904) The founding fathers of International Law. Paris, V. Giard & E. Brière, Paris
Bassiouni MC (2003) Introduction to International Criminal Law. Transnational Publishers, Inc., Ardsley
Bassiouni MC (2006) The ICC – Quo Vadis? JICJ 4:421–427
Bassiouni MC, Ferencz B (2008) The crime against peace and aggression: from its origins to the ICC. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law, vol I, 3rd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 207–242
Bathurst ME (1945) The United Nations War Crimes Commission. AJIL 39:565–570
Batyr VA (2006) Mejdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe pravo [International Humanitarian Law]. Yustitsinform, Moscow
Behruz H (2011) Sravnitelnoe pravovedenie [Comparative Jurisprudence]. Phoenix, TransLit
Bertrand M (1995) The UN as an Organization: a critique of its functioning. EJIL 6:349–359
Best G (1994) War and law since 1945. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Bilfinger C (1937) Die russische Definition des Angreifers. ZaöRV 7:483–496
Bilfinger C (1940) Die Kriegserklärungen der Westmächte und der Kelloggpakt. ZaöRV 10:1–23
Blokker N (2005) The security council and the use of force—on recent practice. In: Blokker N, Schrijver N (eds) The security council and the use of force: theory and reality—a need for change? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, pp 1–29
Blumenson E (2006) The challenge of a global standard of justice: peace, pluralism and punishment at the International Criminal Court. Columbia JTL 44:797–867
Boister N (2003) Transnational Criminal Law? EJIL 14:953–976
Borchard E (1929a) The Kellogg Treaties Sanction War. ZaöRV 1:126–131
Borchard E (1929b) The multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. AJIL 23:116–120
Borchard E (1944) Flaws in post-war peace plans. AJIL 38:284–289
Borchard E (1946) The atomic bomb. AJIL 40:161–165
Bottini G (2004) Universal jurisdiction after the creation of the International Criminal Court. ILP 36:503–562
Boutros-Ghali B (1995) An agenda for peace. United Nations, New York
Bowett D (1994) The impact of security council decisions on dispute settlement procedures. EJIL 5:89–101
Boye T (1930)Shall a state which goes to war in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact have a belligerent’s rights in respect of neutrals? AJIL 24:766–770
Briggs HW (1947) The United Nations and International Legislation. AJIL 41:433–435
Briggs HW (1957) Towards the rule of law? AJIL 51:517–529
Briggs HW (1959) The United States and the International Court of Justice: a re-examination. AJIL 53:301–318
Brown PM (1934) The Russian Soviet Union and the Law of Nations. AJIL 28:733–736
Brown PM (1939) Undeclared wars. AJIL 33:538–541
Brown C (2006) The inherent powers of International Courts and Tribunals. BYIL 77:195–244
Brown Firmage E (1969) The treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. AJIL 63:711–746
Brownlie I (1998) Principles of Public International Law, 5th edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Burchard C (2006) The Nuremberg trial and its impact on Germany. JICJ 4:800–829
Calder N (1993) Studies in early Muslim jurisprudence. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Carlston KS (1950) Interpretation of peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania, advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice. AJIL 44:728–737
Cassese A (1999) The Statute of the International Criminal Court: some preliminary reflections. EJIL 10:144–171
Cassese A (2007) On some problematical aspects of the crime of aggression. Leiden JIL 20:841–849
Chakste M (1948) Justice and Law in the Charter of the United Nations. AJIL 42:590–600
Chakste M (1949) Soviet concepts of the State: International Law and Sovereignty. AJIL 43:21–36
Clark JB (1917) Shall there be war after the war? AJIL 11:790–793
Clark RS (2002) Rethinking aggression as a crime and formulating its elements: the final work-product of the preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court. Leiden JIL 15:859–890
Clark RS (2009) Negotiating provisions defining the crime of aggression, its elements and the conditions for icc exercise of jurisdiction over it. EJIL 20:1103–1115
Clark RS (2011) The role of the United Nations. In: Natarajan M (ed) International Crime and Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 337–342
Clarke RF (1907) A permanent tribunal of international arbitration: its necessity and value. AJIL 1:342–408
Collinson P (2006) The reformation: a history. Random House Publishing Group, New York
Condorelli L (1995) La Cour Internationale de Justice: 50 ans et (pour l’heure) pas une ride. EJIL 6:388–400
Coppieters B, Fotion N, Apresyan R (eds) (2002) Nravstvennye ogranicheniya voyny: problemy i primery [Moral Restraints on War: Issues and Examples]. Gardariki, Moscow
Coulson NJ (1964) A history of Islamic Law. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh
Cowles WB (1948) Trials of war criminals (Non-Nuremberg). AJIL 42:299–319
Crawford J (1994) The ILC’s Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal. AJIL 88:140–152
Cryer R (2005) Prosecuting international crimes: selectivity and the international criminal law regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
D’Amato A (1967) Legal aspects of the French nuclear tests. AJIL 61:66–77
Dahm G (1961) Völkerrecht, Band III. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
David E (2011) Printsipy prava voorujennyh konfliktov [Principles of the Law of Armed Conflicts], 2nd edn. ICRC, Moscow
Davie MR (1929) The evolution of war: a study on its role in early societies. Kennikat Press, New Haven
Davis GS (2011) Sharia reasoning and the pursuit of democracy: John Kelsay’s arguing the just war in Islam. JCS 53:59–72
De Bustamante AS (1908) The Hague Convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in land warfare. AJIL 2:95–120
De Sillac MJ (1911) Periodical peace conferences. AJIL 5:968–986
De Vattel E (1863) The Law of Nations or the principles of natural law, Book III. Guillaumin, Paris
Deyra M (2002) L’essentiel du droit des conflits armés. Guliano éditeur
Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dugard J (1987) Recognition and the United Nations. Grotius, Cambridge
Eagleton C (1942) Organization of the community of nations. AJIL 36:229–241
Eagleton C (1943a) Punishment of war criminals by the United Nations. AJIL 37:495–499
Eagleton C (1943b) Some questions as to the place of the individual in the International Law of the Future. AJIL 37:642–644
Eagleton C (1945) International law and the charter of the United Nations. AJIL 39:751–754
Eagleton C (1946) The jurisdiction of the Security Council over disputes. AJIL 40:513–533
Edge I (ed) (1996) Islamic Law and legal theory. Dartmouth, Aldershot
Ehard H (1949) The Nuremberg Trial against the major war criminals and international law. AJIL 43:223–245
El Azhary MS (ed) (1984) The Iran–Iraq War: an historical: economic and political analysis. Croom Helm Ltd, New York
Elshtain JB (2001) The third annual Grotius Lecture: just war and humanitarian intervention. AUILR 17:1–25
En-Nawawi M (1992) A manual of Muhammadan Law according to the school of Shafii. Navrang, New Delhi
Evered TC (1994) An International Criminal Court: recent proposals and American concerns. Pace ILR 6:121–158
Falk RA (1965) The Shimoda Case: a legal appraisal of the atomic attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. AJIL 59:759–793
Falk RA (1997) Nuclear weapons, International law and the World Court: a historic encounter. AJIL 91:64–75
Falk RA (2003) What future for the UN Charter System of war prevention? AJIL 97:590–598
Fenby J (2006) Alliance: the inside story of how Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill won one war and began another. Pocket Books, San Francisco
Fenwick CG (1929) Germany and the Crime of the World War. AJIL 23:812–815
Fenwick CG (1932) The implication of consultation in the Pact of Paris. AJIL 26:787–789
Fenwick CG (1937) War without a declaration. AJIL 31:694–696
Fenwick CG (1952) When is a treaty not a treaty? AJIL 46:296–298
Ferencz BB (2007) Enabling the International Criminal Court to punish aggression. WUGSLR 6:551–566
Finch GA (1933) A pact of non-aggression. AJIL 27:725–732
Finch GA (1945) The United Nations Charter. AJIL 39:541–546
Finch GA (1947) The Nuremberg Trial and international law. AJIL 41:20–37
Franck TM (1995) The Secretary-General’s role in conflict resolution: past, present and pure conjecture. EJIL 6:360–387
Frowein JA (1976) Der Beitrag der internationalen Organisationen zur Entwicklung des Völkerrechts. ZaöRV 36:147–167
Garner JW (1915a) Some questions of International Law in the European War. AJIL 9:72–112
Garner JW (1915b) Some questions of International Law in the European War. AJIL 9:372–401
Garner JW (1915c) Some questions of International Law in the European War. AJIL 9:594–626
Garner JW (1915d) Some questions of International Law in the European War. AJIL 9:818–857
Garner JW (1916a) Some questions of International Law in the European War. AJIL 10:12–41
Garner JW (1916b) Some questions of International Law in the European War. AJIL 10:238–269
Garvey JI (2008) A new architecture for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. JCSL 12:339–357
Golsong H (1971) Role and functioning of the International Court of Justice: proposals recently made on the subject. ZaöRV 31:673–696
Gomaa MM (2004) The definition of the crime of aggression and the ICC jurisdiction over that crime. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Burlington, pp 55–77
Goodrich LM (1938) The nature of the advisory opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice. AJIL 32:738–758
Gordon E (1965) The World Court and the interpretation of constitutive treaties: some observations on the development of an International Constitutional Law. AJIL 59:794–833
Graefrath B (1990) Universal criminal jurisdiction and an International Criminal Court. EJIL 1:67–88
Gray C (2003) The use and abuse of the International Court of Justice: cases concerning the use of force after Nicaragua. EJIL 14:867–905
Gray C (2008) International law and the use of force, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Green LC (1993) The contemporary law of armed conflict. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Gross L (1948) The peace of Westphalia, 1648–1948. AJIL 42:20–41
Gross L (1971) The International Court of Justice: consideration of requirements for enhancing its role in the international legal order. AJIL 65:253–326
Gross L (1972) Review of the role of the International Court of Justice. AJIL 66:479–490
Grotius H (1853) On the rights of war and peace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Grover L (2010) A call to arms: fundamental dilemmas confronting the interpretation of crimes of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. EJIL 21:543–583
Hallaq WB (1997) A history of Islamic legal theories—an introduction to Sunni Usal al-Fiqh. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hargrove JL (1987) The Nicaragua Judgment and the future of the law of force and self-defense. AJIL 81:135–143
Harris DJ (2004) Cases and materials on International Law, 6th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Hashmi SH (2002) Interpreting the Islamic ethics of war and peace. In: Hashmi SH (ed) Islamic political ethics: civil society, pluralism and conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 194–216
Hata I, Jansen MB (2007) Hirohito: the Shōwa emperor in war and peace. Global Oriental, Folkestone
Hedges RY (1928) Justiciable disputes. AJIL 22:560–565
Heintschel von Heinegg W, Epping V (eds) (2007) International humanitarian law facing new challenges: symposium in honour of Knut Ipsen. Springer, Berlin
Heller KJ (2011) The Nuremberg military tribunals and the origins of international criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Henderson I (2011) The Firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities. In: Tanaka Y, McCormack T, Simpson G (eds) Beyond victors’ justice? The Tokyo War Crimes Trial revisited. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 311–321
Hershey AS (1908) Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences. AJIL 2:29–49
Hershey AS (1911) The history of international relations during antiquity and the middle ages. AJIL 5:901–933
Hershey AS (1912) History of international law since the peace of Westphalia. AJIL 6:30–69
Hill DJ (1907) The second peace conference at The Hague. AJIL 1:671–691
Hill DJ (1928) The multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. AJIL 22:823–826
Hinnells JR (ed) (2007) A handbook of ancient religions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hisakazu F (2011) The Tokyo Trial: humanity’s justice v victors’ justice. In: Tanaka Y, McCormack T, Simpson G (eds) Beyond victors’ justice? The Tokyo War Crimes trial Revisited. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 3–21
Hoffmann S (1995) Thoughts on the UN at fifty. EJIL 6:317–324
Houben PH (1967) Principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states. AJIL 61:703–736
Hoyt EP (1992) Hirohito: the emperor and the man. Praeger, New York
Hudson MO (1948) The effect of advisory opinions of the World Court. AJIL 42:630–632
Hudson MO (1957) The succession of the International Court of Justice to the Permanent Court of International Justice. AJIL 51:569–573
Hull WI (1908) Obligatory arbitration and the Hague conferences. AJIL 2:731–742
Hulsroj P (2002) The legal function of the Security Council. Chinese JIL 1:59–93
Hyde CC (1928) Safeguarding peace—a constructive suggestion. AJIL 22:262–269
Hyde CC (1941) Secretary Hull on the Kellogg-Briand Pact. AJIL 35:117–118
Iles Johnston S (ed) (2007) Ancient religions. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Ilesanmi SO (2011) Sharia reasoning, political legitimacy, and democratic visions. JCS 53:27–36
International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (1988) Henry Dunant Institute, UNESCO, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht
International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment of 1 October 1946. In: The trial of German major war criminals. Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal sitting at Nuremberg, Germany, Part 22 (22 Aug–1 Oct 1946)
Israelyan VL (1990) Diplomaty litsom k litsu [Diplomats Face to Face]. Moscow «Iz predisloviya Marii fon Klauzevits k pervomu izdaniyu» [«From Maria von Clausewitz’s Preface to the First Edition»] (2002). In: Von Clausewitz C, O voyne [On War], Moscow, Terra Fantastica, volume I, pp 5–9
Jacobs D (2010) The sheep in the box: the definition of the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court. In: Burchard C, Triffterer O, Vogel J (eds) The review conference and the future of the International Criminal Court: proceedings of the first AIDP symposium for young penalists in Tübingen, Germany, co-organized by the AIDP YP Committee. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne, pp 131–152
Jessup PC (1941) International law and totalitarian war. AJIL 35:329–331
Johnson JT (2011) Tracing the contours of the Jihad of individual duty. JCS 53:37–49
Kalugin VY (2006) Kurs mejdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava [Treatise on international humanitarian law]. Tessey, Minsk
Kalugin VY, Akulov DV (2004) Presechenie narusheniy v mehanizme implementatsii mejdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava [The Repression of Violations in the Mechanism of Implementation of International Humanitarian Law]. Tessey, Minsk
Kalugin VY, Pavlova LV, Fisenko IV (1999) Mejdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe pravo [international humanitarian law]. Tessey, Minsk
Karsh E (2002) The Iran–Iraq War 1980–1988. Osprey Publishing, London
Karsh E (2009) The Iran–Iraq War. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., New York
Kellogg FB (1928) The war prevention policy of the United States. AJIL 22:253–261
Kelsen H (1945) The old and the new league: The Covenant and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. AJIL 39:45–83
Kemp G (2010) Individual criminal liability for the international crime of aggression. Intersentia, Oxford
Khadduri M (1956) Islam and the modern law of nations. AJIL 50:358–372
Khadduri M (1966) The Islamic law of nations: Shaybani’s Siyar. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore
Khakimov R (2007) Mejdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe pravo [International Humanitarian Law], 2nd edn. Tashkent
Khakimov R (2012) Mejdunarodnaya pravosubyektnost: voprosy istorii, teorii i praktiki [International Legal Personality: Issues of History, Theory and Practice]. Tashkent
Kirsch P (2007) The role of the International Criminal Court in enforcing international criminal law. AULR 22:539–547
Kirsch P, Holmes JT (1999) The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: the negotiating process. AJIL 93:2–12
Kirsch P, Oosterveld V (2001) Negotiating an institution for the twenty-first century: multilateral diplomacy and the International Criminal Court. McGill LJ 46:1141–1160
Kissinger H (1994) Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York
Kivalov SV (2009) Mijnarodne kriminalne pravosuddya: vid Nyurberzskogo viyskovogo tribunalu do Mijnarodnogo kriminalnogo sudu [International Criminal Justice: from the Nuremberg Military Tribunal to the International Criminal Court]. Almanac Int Law 1:5–18
Kochavi AJ (1998) Prelude to Nuremberg, allied war crimes policy and the questions of punishment. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Köchler H (2003) Global justice or global revenge? International criminal justice at the crossroads. Springer, New York
Köchler H (2006) The United Nations Organization and global power politics: the antagonism between power and law and the future of world order. Chinese JIL 5:323–340
Kocourek A (1918) Some reflections on the problem of a society of nations. AJIL 12:498–518
Korovin EA (1946) The Second World War and international law. AJIL 40:742–755
Koskenniemi M (1996) The place of law in collective security. Michigan JIL 17:455–490
Kotlyarov II (2003) Mejdunarodnoe pravo i voorujennye konflikty. Moscow
Kress C (2007) The crime of aggression before the first review of the ICC Statute. Leiden JIL 20:851–865
Kress C (2009) Time for decision: some thoughts on the immediate future of the crime of aggression: a reply to Andreas Paulus. EJIL 20:1129–1146
Kress C, Von Holtzendorff L (2010) The Kampala compromise on the crime of aggression. JICJ 8:1179–1217
Kuhn AK (1941) The organization of peace. AJIL 35:114–117
Kunz JL (1946) The legal position of the Secretary General of the United Nations. AJIL 40:786–792
Kunz JL (1951a) Bellum Justum and Bellum Legale. AJIL 45:528–534
Kunz JL (1951b) The chaotic status of the laws of war and the urgent necessity for their revision. AJIL 45:37–61
Kunz JL (1952a) Ending the war with Germany. AJIL 46:114–119
Kunz JL (1952b) The United Nations and the rule of law. AJIL 46:504–508
Lauterpacht E (1968) The legal irrelevance of the “State of War. Proc Am Soc Int Law 62:58–68
Lawson RC (1952) The problem of the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. AJIL 46:219–238
Leanza U (2004) The historical background. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, pp 3–15
Legais R (2009) Velikie pravovye sistemy sovremennosti [The great contemporary legal systems]. Wolters Kluwer, New York
Leigh M (2001) The United States and the Statute of Rome. AJIL 95:124–131
Li Z (2002) Traditional Chinese World Order. Chinese JIL 1:20–58
Lijun Y (2003) Some critical remarks on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Chinese JIL 2:599–622
Lim SL (2007) The great power balance, the United Nations and what the framers intended: in partial response to Hans Köchler. Chinese JIL 6:307–328
Link AS (ed) (1966–) The papers of Woodrow Wilson. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Lopes Pegna O (1998) Counter-claims and obligations Erga Omnes before the International Court of Justice. EJIL 9:724–736
Lukashuk II (2008) Mejdunarodnoe pravo: Obshchaya chast [International Law: General Part], 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer, New York
MacCulloch D (2004) The reformation. Viking, New York
Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law, 7th revised edn. Routledge, London
Malekian F (2011) Principles of Islamic international criminal law: a comparative study, 2nd edn. Brill, London
Mallat C (1993) The renewal of Islamic law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Malyavin VV (2002) Kitayskaya voennaya strategiya [Chinese Military Strategy]. Astrel, Moscow
Mammen L (2006) Auf dem Weg zu einer umfassenden Strategie im weltweiten Vorgehen gegen den Terrorismus – Eine Analyse des Berichts des Generalsekretärs der Vereinten Nationen zur Anti-Terrorismusstrategie. HuV-I 19:293–296
Manning P (1989) Hirohito: the war years. Bantam Books, New York
March AF, Modirzadeh NK (2013) Ambivalent universalism? Jus ad Bellum in modern islamic legal discourse. EJIL 24:367–389
Martens FF (2008) Sovremennoe mejdunarodnoe pravo tsivilizovannyh narodov [Contemporary International Law of Civilised Peoples], vol I. Zertsalo, Moscow
Matheson MJ (1997) The opinions of the International Court of Justice on the threat or use of nuclear weapons. AJIL 91:417–435
McCoubrey H, White N (1992) International law and armed conflict. Dartmouth, Aldershot
McWhinney E (2006) The International Court of Justice and international law-making: the judicial activism/self-restraint antinomy. Chinese JIL 5:3–13
Meiertöns H (2010) The doctrines of US security policy: an evaluation under international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Meron T (1998) Is international law moving towards criminalization? EJIL 9:18–31
Minear R (1971) Victor’s justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Münch F (1961) Zum Stand der internationalen obligatorischen Gerichtsbarkeit. ZaöRV 21:221–248
Murphy CF Jr (1982) The Grotian vision of world order. AJIL 76:477–498
Murphy SD (2009) Aggression, legitimacy and the International Criminal Court. EJIL 20:1147–1156
Myers DP (1948) Liquidation of league of nations functions. AJIL 42:320–354
Nasinovsky E (1968) The impact of 50 years of Soviet theory and practice on international law. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. AJIL 62:189
Natarajan M, Kukaj A (2011) The International Criminal Court. In: Natarajan M (ed) international crime and justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–365
Neff SC (2005) War and the law of nations: a general history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Neubacher F (2006) How can it happen that horrendous state crimes are perpetrated? An overview of criminological theories. JICJ 4:787–799
Nobleman EE (1946) American military government courts in Germany. AJIL 40:803–811
Nobleman EE (1947) Quadripartite military government organization and operations in Germany. AJIL 41:650–655
Oba AA (2002) Islamic Law as customary law: the changing perspective in Nigeria. ICLQ 51:817–850
Oberman HA (2004) The reformation: roots and ramifications. T&T Clark International, Edinburgh
Oh I (2011) On democracy, violence, and the promise of Islam. JCS 53:50–58
Orakelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Österdahl I (2005) The exception as the rule: lawmaking on force and human rights by the UN Security Council. JCSL 10:1–20
Otomo Y (2011) The decision not to prosecute the emperor. In: Tanaka Y, McCormack T, Simpson G (eds) Beyond Victors’ justice? The Tokyo war crimes trial revisited. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 63–78
Paulus A (2009) Second thoughts on the crime of aggression. EJIL 20:1117–1128
Payandeh M (2006) Rechtskontrolle des UN-Sicherheitsrates durch staatliche und überstaatliche Gerichte. ZaöRV 66:41–71
Pellet A (1995) La formation du droit international dans le cadre des Nations Unies. EJIL 6:401–425
Penfield WL (1907) International arbitration. AJIL 1:330–341
Plischke E (1947) Denazification law and procedure. AJIL 41:807–827
Politi M (2004) The debate within the preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, pp 43–51
Politi M (2012) The ICC and the crime of aggression: a dream that came through and the reality ahead. JICJ 10:267–288
Potemkin VP (ed) (1941) Istoriya diplomatii [History of Diplomacy], vol I. OGIZ, Moscow
Potemkin VP (ed) (1945) Istoriya diplomatii [History of Diplomacy], vol III. OGIZ, Moscow
Potter PB (1945) Voting procedure in the Security Council. AJIL 39:318–322
Rahmanov A, Rahmanov A (2003) Islamskoe pravo [Islamic Law]. Tashkent
Rajabov SA (2006) Implementatsiya norm mejdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava v Respublike Tadjikistan: problemy teorii i praktiki [The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in the Republic of Tajikistan: Issues of Theory and Practice]. Dushanbe
Rajaee F (ed) (1993) The Iran–Iraq War: the politics of aggression. University Press of Florida, Gainesville
Ralston JH (1907) Some suggestions as to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. AJIL 1:321–329
Ratner SR (1995) Image and reality in the UN’s peaceful settlement of disputes. EJIL 6:426–444
Ratti O, Westbrook A (2006) Samurai: istoriya, traditsii, voinskoe iskusstvo [The Samurais: History, Traditions, Military Art]. Eksmo, Moscow
Reisman WM (1969) The enforcement of international judgments. AJIL 63:1–27
Reisman WM (1980) The legal effect of vetoed resolutions. AJIL 74:904–907
Renault L (1915) War and the law of nations in the twentieth century. AJIL 9:1–16
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials (1949). U.S. Government Printing Office
Rie R (1954) The war crimes trials. AJIL 48:470–474
Roberts A, Kingsbury B (eds) (1993) United Nations, divided world: The UN’s roles in international relations, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Röling BVA, Rüter CF (eds) (1977) The Tokyo Judgment. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.), 29 April 1946–12 Nov 1948, vol II. APA—University Press, Amsterdam BV
Rosen L (1989) The anthropology of justice—law as culture in Islamic society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rudzinski AW (1951) The so-called double veto. AJIL 45:443–461
Rusinova VN (2006) Narusheniya mejdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava: individualnaya ugolovnaya otvetstvennost i sudebnoe presledovanie [Violations of International Humanitarian Law: Individual Criminal Responsibility and Prosecution]. Yurlitinform, Moscow
Ruthven M (2006) Islam in the world, 3rd edn. Granta Books, London
Rybachenok IS (2005) Poccия и Пepвaя кoнфepeнция миpa 1899 гoдa в Гaaгe [Russia and the First Hague Peace Conference of 1899]. ROSSPEN, Moscow
Safferling C (2012) International criminal procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Saidov AH (ed) (1994) Hidoya: kommentarii musulmanskogo prava [The Hidoyah: a commentary of Muslim Law], vol I. Tashkent
Saidov AH (2000) Sravnitelnoe pravovedenie [Comparative jurisprudence]. Yurist, Moscow
Samad J (2011) John Locke and Muslim Liberalism. JCS 53:84–108
Sandifer DV (1940) Rereading Grotius in the Year 1940. AJIL 34:459–472
Sardar Ali S, Rehman J (2005) The concept of Jihad in Islamic international law. JCSL 10:321–343
Sassóli M, Bouvier AA (2006) How does law protect in war? vols I and II , 2nd edn. ICRC, Geneva
Saul B (2005) Definition of ‘‘Terrorism’’ in the UN Security Council: 1985–2004. Chinese JIL 4:141–146
Sayapin S (2009) K voprosu ob opredelinii prestupleniya agressii: promejutochnaya otsenka raboty Spetsialnoy rabochey gruppy Assamblei gosudarstv-uchastnikov Rimskogo statuta [The definition of the crime of aggression revisited: a preliminary appraisal of the performance of the special working group of the state parties to the Rome Statute]. In: Bogush GI, Trikoz EN (eds) Mejdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravosudie: sovremennye problemy [International Criminal Justice: contemporary issues]. Moscow, pp 157–173
Scaglia B (2011) Ancient religions: a history (Prehistoric, Ancient Greece and Rome, Vedic, Egyptian, and More). Webster’s Digital Services
Scarf MP (1994) Getting serious about an International Criminal Court. Pace ILR 6:103–119
Schabas WA (2004) Origins of the criminalisation of aggression: how crimes against peace became the “Supreme International Crime”. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, pp 17–32
Schacht J (1964) An introduction to Islamic law. Clarendon Press , Oxford
Schachter O (1960) The enforcement of international judicial and arbitral decisions. AJIL 54:1–24
Schachter O (1964) The Quasi-judicial role of the Security Council and the general assembly. AJIL 58:960–965
Schachter O (1994) United Nations Law. AJIL 88:1–23
Schick FB (1947) The Nuremberg trial and the international law of the future. AJIL 41:770–794
Schlüter F (1942) Kelloggpakt und Neutralitätsrecht. ZaöRV 11:24–32
Schrijver N (2007) Reforming the UN Security Council in pursuance of collective security. JCSL 12:127–138
Schweigman D (2001) The authority of the Security Council under chapter VII of the UN Charter: legal limits and the role of the International Court of Justice. Kluwer Law International, Boston
Schwelb E (1972) The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clauses of the Charter. AJIL 66:337–351
Scott GW (1908a) Hague Convention restricting the use of force to recover on contract claims. AJIL 2:78–94
Scott JB (1908b) Recommendation for a third peace conference at The Hague. AJIL 2:815–822
Scott JB (1908c) The proposed court of arbitral justice. AJIL 2:772–810
Scott JB (1908d) The work of the second Hague peace conference. AJIL 2:1–28
Scott JB (1912) The evolution of a permanent international judiciary. AJIL 6:316–358
Scott JB (1925) Grotius’ De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres: The work of a lawyer, statesman and theologian. AJIL 19:461–468
Sellars K (2012) Delegitimizing aggression: first steps and false starts after the First World War. JICJ 10:7–40
Shah NA (2013) The use of force under Islamic law. EJIL 24:343–365
Shaw M (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Simpson G (2011) Writing the Tokyo Trial. In: Tanaka Y, McCormack T, Simpson G (eds) Beyond victors’ justice? The Tokyo war crimes trial revisited. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 23–33
Jennings R Sir (1987) The judicial enforcement of international obligations. ZaöRV 47:3–16
Skordas A (2001) Epilegomena to a silence: nuclear weapons, terrorism and the moment of concern. JCSL 6:191–224
Spencer R (ed) (2005) The myth of Islamic tolerance: how Islamic law treats non-Muslims. Prometheus Books, Amherst
Stancu IG (2004) Defining the crime of aggression or redefining aggression? In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, pp 87–91
Stewart JH (1951) The imprisonment of Napoleon: a legal opinion by Lord Eldon. AJIL 45:571–577
Stockder AH (1916) The legality of the blockades instituted by Napoleon’s Decrees, and the British Orders in Council, 1806–1813. AJIL 10:492–508
Stowell EC (1908) Convention relative to the opening of hostilities. AJIL 2:50–62
Stowell EC (1944) The juridical significance of World War II. AJIL 38:106–108
Subedi SP (2003) The concept in Hinduism of ‘Just War’. JCSL 8:339–361
Sun Tzu (2005) The art of war. Nuvision Pubn
Sunga LS (1998) The crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (Part II, Articles 5–10). EJCCLCJ 6:61–83
Takeshi N (2011) Justice Pal (India). In: Tanaka Y, McCormack T, Simpson G (eds) Beyond victors’ justice? The Tokyo War Crimes Trial revisited. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 127–144
Tanaka Y (2011) The atomic bombing, the Tokyo Tribunal and the Shimoda Case: lessons for anti-nuclear legal movements. In: Tanaka Y, McCormack T, Simpson G (eds) Beyond victors’ justice? The Tokyo War Crimes Trial revisited. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 293–310
Tanzi A (1995) Problems of enforcement of decisions of the International Court of Justice and the law of the United Nations. EJIL 6:539–572
Taylor AJP (1965) British History 1914–1915. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Taylor T (1992) The anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: a personal memoir. Little, Brown, Boston
Temperley HWV (ed) (1920) A history of the peace conference of Paris: a settlement with Germany. Henry Frowde and Hodder and Stoughton, London
The Bhavagad Gita (1962) trans: J. Mascaró. Penguin Books, London
Thirlway H (2005) The drafting of ICJ decisions: some personal recollections and observations. Chinese JIL 4:15–28
Thomas ED (1945) Atomic bombs in international society. AJIL 39:736–744
Tomuschat C (1994) International criminal prosecution: the precedent of Nuremberg confirmed. CLF 5:237–247
Tomuschat C (1998) Das Statut von Rom für den internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Die Friedens-Warte 73:335–347
Tomuschat C (2006) The legacy of Nuremberg. JICJ 4:830–844
Tomuschat C (2012) Zehn Jahre Internationaler Strafgerichtshof. Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 39:673–681
Triffterer O (2010) The court in danger? Future perspectives for international criminal law and its enforcement mechanisms. In: Burchard C, Triffterer O, Vogel J (eds) The review conference and the future of the International Criminal Court: Proceedings of the first AIDP symposium for young penalists in Tübingen, Germany, co-organized by the AIDP YP Committee, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp 9–64
Tuck R (1999) The rights of war and peace: political thought and the international order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Turlington E (1946) International control of the atomic bomb. AJIL 40:165–167
Turney-High HH (1971) Primitive war: its practices and concepts, 2nd edn. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia
United Nations War Crimes Commission (1948) History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War. H. M. Stationery Office, London
Vasilyev LS (2003) Istoriya Vostoka [History of the orient], vol 1. Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow
Von Clausewitz C (1997) On war. Wordsworth Editions Limited, Hertfortshire
Von Clausewitz C (2002a) O voyne [On war], vol I. Terra Fantastica, Moscow
Von Clausewitz C (2002b) O voyne [On war], vol II. Terra Fantastica, Moscow
Von Elbe J (1939) The evolution of the concept of the just war in international law. AJIL 33:665–688
Von Mandelsloh AG (1933) Die Auslegung des Kelloggpaktes durch den amerikanischen Staatssekretär Stimson. ZaöRV 3:617–627
Von Senger H (2004a) Stratagemy: o kitayskom iskusstve jit i vyjivat, tom 1: stratagemy 1–18 [Stratagems: on the Chinese Art of Living and Surviving, volume 1: stratagems 1–18]. Eksmo, Moscow
Von Senger H (2004b) Stratagemy: o kitayskom iskusstve jit i vyjivat, tom 2: stratagemy 19–36 [Stratagems: on the Chinese art of living and surviving, volume 2: stratagems 19–36]. Eksmo, Moscow
Von Tabouillot W (1937) Die Aufnahme der Völkerbundssatzung in den Versailler Vertrag. ZaöRV 7:15–37
Ward CA (2003) Building capacity to combat international terrorism: the role of the United Nations Security Council. JCSL 8:289–305
Weber M (1990) «Politika kak prizvanie i professiya» [«Politics as a Vocation and Profession»]. In: Weber M, Izbrannye proizvedeniya, Moscow, Progress
Wedgwood R (1999) The International Criminal Court: an American view. EJIL 10:93–107
Weeramantry CG (1999) Islamic jurisprudence: an international perspective. Sarvodaya Vishva Lekha, Ratmalana
Weisbord N (2008) Prosecuting aggression. Harvard ILJ 49:161–220
Weisbord N (2009) Conceptualising aggression. Duke JCIL 20:1–68
Wellens K (2003) The UN Security Council and new threats to the peace: back to the future. JCSL 8:15–70
Werle G (2009a) Principles of international criminal law, 2nd edn. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague
Werle G (2009b) The crime of aggression between international and domestic criminal law. In: Manacorda S, Nieto A (eds) Criminal law between war and peace. Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, pp 405–421
Willett E (2004) The Iran–Iraq war. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., New York
Williamson M (2009) Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot
Willoughby WW (1918a) The Prussian theory of government. AJIL 12:266–282
Willoughby WW (1918b) The Prussian theory of the state. AJIL 12:251–265
Wilson GG (1932) Use of force and war. AJIL 26:327–328
Wilson GG (1936) When does war begin? AJIL 30:80–83
Wilson GG (1941) Grotius: law of war and peace. AJIL 35:205–226
Wilson RR (1970) The United Nations as symbol and as instrument. AJIL 64:139–143
Wright Q (1924) Changes in the conception of war. AJIL 18:755–767
Wright Q (1932) When does war exist? AJIL 26:362–368
Wright Q (1933) The meaning of the pact of Paris. AJIL 27:39–61
Wright Q (1935) The concept of aggression in International Law. AJIL 29:373–395
Wright Q (1943) International law and the balance of power. AJIL 37:97–103
Wright Q (1945) War criminals. AJIL 39:257–285
Wright Q (1947) The law of the Nuremberg Trial. AJIL 41:38–72
Wright Q (1953) The outlawry of war and the law of war. AJIL 47:365–376
Yáñez-Barnuevo A (2004) The exercise of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction over the crime of aggression: short term and long term perspectives. In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the crime of aggression. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, pp 109–117
Yee S (2005) A proposal for formalizing the “No Case Exists” objections procedure at the International Court of Justice. Chinese JIL 4:393–416
Young J, Kent J (2004) International relations since 1945: a global history. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zelinskaya NA (2006) Mejdunarodnye prestupleniya i mejdunarodnaya prestupnost [International Crimes and International Criminality]. Yuridichna literatura
Zemmali A (1997) Combattants et prisonniers de guerre en droit islamique et en droit international humanitaire. Editions A. Pedone, Paris
Zhidkov OA, Krasheninnikova NA (eds) (2001) Istoriya gosudarstva i prava [History of state and law], vol I. Norma, Moscow
Ziemke EF (1990) The U.S. Army in the occupation of Germany 1944–1946. Center of Military History United States Army, Washington, D.C.
Zimmermann A (1998) Die Schaffung eines ständigen internationalen Strafgerichtshofes: Perspektiven und Probleme vor der Staatenkonferenz in Rom. ZaöRV 58:47–108
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Institute and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sayapin, S. (2014). Historical Background of the Criminalization of Aggression. In: The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-927-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-927-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-926-9
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-927-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
