Skip to main content
Book cover

Rethinking the Crime of Aggression pp 269–289Cite as

Key Risks and Difficulties of Aggression Trials

Abstract

This chapter presents the main risks and difficulties of prosecuting the crime of aggression. It argues that aggression trials can negatively impact peace, the international criminal justice system (particularly the International Criminal Court) and the reconciliation process. This chapter further stresses that prosecution of aggression may endanger the Security Council’s efforts to maintain peace and security because it places considerable pressure on the Council to classify certain situations as acts of aggression. This is despite the fact that the principle of independence of courts means that they must be able to challenge any decision of the Council to this effect. Moreover, the current scope of criminalization of aggression is problematic. On the one hand, it excludes intrastate use of force, i.e. the main source of threats to peace. And yet, on the other hand, it may serve to discourage interventions undertaken for humanitarian reasons or, conversely, to encourage military operations with doubtful legal justification. Trials of aggression may undermine the International Criminal Court’s credibility if the Court is forced to shift its resources towards aggression cases due to political pressures. The limitation of aggression charges to those in leadership positions also misrepresents the guilt of the whole population of aggressor State(s) and prevents full reconciliation between victim and aggressor States’ populations. This chapter further emphasizes that prosecution of aggressors is inherently linked to the problem of recognition of immunities and privileges of high officials, which can prevent the surrender of such officials to the international court or their extradition to third-party States. There is also a strong risk of violation of basic human rights, as access to evidence is limited due to security reasons. Taking into account all risks and challenges, the prosecution of the crime of aggression could be against the interest of justice.

Keywords

  • Aggression
  • Crime of Aggression
  • Security Council
  • Reconciliation

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6265-467-9_14
  • Chapter length: 21 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-6265-467-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Coracini 2009, pp. 725 et seq. On the problems related with domestic prosecution of crime of aggression, see also Jurdi 2013, pp. 1 et seq.

  2. 2.

    On 14 December 2017, the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute decided on the activation of the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of aggression, ICC Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 of 14 December 2017. The definition of aggression was adopted seven years earlier, during the Kampala Review Conference, ICC Resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010.

  3. 3.

    See more on risks and difficulties related with prosecution of aggression in historic perspective in Grzebyk 2013, pp. 215 et seq.

  4. 4.

    Tallgren 2002, p. 585; Nsereko 2003, p. 265.

  5. 5.

    Zolo 2004, p. 727; O’Donovan 2007, p. 509; Nyiri 1989, p. 39, Taylor 1970, p. 75, Dawson 2000, p. 431; Beigbeder 1999, p. 193, Müller-Schieke 2001, p. 414, Kress 2006, p. 38.

  6. 6.

    Cyprian and Sawicki 1948, p. 12.

  7. 7.

    See Message of His Holiness Pope Paul VI for the Celebration of the Day of Peace, 1 January 1972: ‘If you want Peace, work for Justice’, available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19711208_v-world-day-for-peace_en.html (accessed 1 March 2021). See also Bassiouni 2003, p. 680.

  8. 8.

    May 2008, p. 19; Dinstein 2005, p. 117.

  9. 9.

    See more in Ruys 2018, pp. 889 et seq.

  10. 10.

    O’Donovan 2007, p. 527.

  11. 11.

    Van de Kieft 2002, p. 2341; Sheffer 2017, p. 85.

  12. 12.

    Tancredi 2014, pp. 10 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Argument used by Austen Chamberlain during his speech in the House of Commons on 24 November 1927. See Diamandesco 1935, pp. 46–47.

  14. 14.

    See ICC Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 of 14 December 2017, para 2 which introduced restrictive interpretation of Article 15bis (4) Rome Statute, more in Zimmermann 2018, p. 19.

  15. 15.

    https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10-b&chapter=18&clang=_en (accessed 1 March 2021).

  16. 16.

    See also Sheffer 2017, pp. 83–84.

  17. 17.

    Schuster 2003, p. 41. See also Mégret 2018, p. 851, where the author argues that ‘Louise Arbour conveniently kept the indictment against Slobodan Milošević secret in ways that greatly facilitated the Dayton peace process’.

  18. 18.

    Once a State is declared to be the aggressor, it has a motivation to fight until the end, Hankey 1950, p. 55; Meltzer 1996, p. 904; Müller-Schieke 2001, p. 421; Schabas 2004b, p. 715; Brackman 1987, p. 35. It is worth remembering that the provisions assigning responsibility for World War I to emperor Wilhelm II were referred to as ‘shame paragraphs’, and nearly ended the ceasefire; Willis 1976, p. 210.

  19. 19.

    Tallgren 2002, p. 593; Hankey 1950, p. 26.

  20. 20.

    Ferencz 2000, p. 60; Boeving 2005, p. 578; Fernández de Gurmendi 2002, p. 602; Escarameia 2004, p. 139; Lacanilao 2004, p. 110.

  21. 21.

    Stein 2005, pp. 5, 9; Nsereko 2003, p. 285; Dinstein 2005, p. 214; Solera 2007, p. 55; see also ICC Report ICC-ASP/4/32 of 13–15 June 2005, para 68.

  22. 22.

    Pompe 1953, p. 86; Dawson 2000, p. 440; Nsereko 2003, p. 278.

  23. 23.

    Lacanilao 2004, p. 108.

  24. 24.

    O’Donovan 2007, p. 516.

  25. 25.

    Kress 2006, p. 38; Trahan 2002, p. 460.

  26. 26.

    Cyprian and Sawicki 1967, p. 25; Röling and Cassese 1993, p. 87; Hankey 1950, p. IX; Minear 1971, passim; Boister and Cryer 2008, p. 310. Until this day, the International Military Tribunal and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East are perceived as victors’ courts. Jackson tried to argue against these charges, explaining that the Nazis stood before the Tribunal ‘not because they lost the war, but because they started it’, IMT Nuremberg, Judgement of 1 October 1946 (Prosecutor v. Goering et al.), in: Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Volume II, Nürnberg, p. 152.

  27. 27.

    Hankey 1950, p. 60.

  28. 28.

    Lacanilao 2004, p. 112.

  29. 29.

    Hogan-Doran and van Ginkel 1996, p. 347.

  30. 30.

    Ferencz 2000, p. 60.

  31. 31.

    Pompe 1953, p. 246. See also de Hoon 2018, p. 920 where the author claims that ‘the Court will be trapped in a “Catch-22” when it decides to prosecute state leaders for aggression.’ Each decision of the Court concerning the crime of aggression will be criticized for political reasons, as it is impossible to distinguish a crime of aggression from political debates related with an aggression as such.

  32. 32.

    IMT Nuremberg, Judgement of 1 October 1946 (Prosecutor v. Goering et al.), in: Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Volume I, Nürnberg 1947, p. 186.

  33. 33.

    Calvocoressi 1947, p. 42.

  34. 34.

    Abtahi 2005, p. 642; Springrose 1999, pp. 152–153; Kress 2006, p. 38.

  35. 35.

    Trahan 2002, p. 442; Marrus 2006, p. 1652.

  36. 36.

    See RC/5 of 10 June 2010, para 5.

  37. 37.

    Paulus 2010, p. 1127.

  38. 38.

    Boeving 2005, p. 583.

  39. 39.

    See more on the complexity of victim participation and reparations in the case of prosecution of aggression before the ICC in Dannenbaum 2018, p. 876.

  40. 40.

    Stahn stresses that the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute means the introduction of ‘a surrogate forum for interstate reparation through criminal proceeding before the ICC’. Stahn 2010, p. 881: cf. also Rosenfeld 2012, pp. 249 et seq.

  41. 41.

    In accordance with Article 127 (1) Rome Statute, the Governments of South Africa (October 2016), Burundi (October 2016), and Gambia (November 2016) notified the Secretary-General of their decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Afterwards South Africa and Gambia decided to revoke their notifications of withdrawal, but Burundi’s withdrawal excluded this State from the State Parties in October 2017. In March 2018, the Philippines decided to withdraw from the Statute.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Van de Kieft 2002, pp. 2336–2337; Ailslieger 1999, p. 84; Springrose 1999, p. 152; Schabas 2004b, pp. 717–718; Peirce 2001, p. 282; Kherad 2005, p. 346; Murphy 2002, p. 43; Jianping and Zhixiang 2005, pp. 608, 611.

  43. 43.

    Wald 2006, p. 327.

  44. 44.

    See press conference of SGWCA of 13 February 2009, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/9FCD3A51-6568-41DF-819F-5075C3857523/0/UNDOCPressConferenceonSWGCAENG.pdf (accessed 1 March 2021).

  45. 45.

    In his opening statement, Jackson clearly stated that the responsibility should be assigned to individuals so as not to incriminate the whole German people, IMT Nuremberg, Judgement of 1 October 1946 (Prosecutor v. Goering et al.), in: Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Volume II, Nürnberg, p. 102.

  46. 46.

    Bassiouni 2003, p. 724; Harroff-Travel 2003, p. 484, Sassòli and Bouvier 2003, p. 304; Antonopoulos 2001, p. 62.

  47. 47.

    Nerlich 2017, p. 45.

  48. 48.

    Pompe 1953, p. 292.

  49. 49.

    Fletcher 2002, p. 164.

  50. 50.

    Zwoliński notes that particularly in democracies, the entire society is responsible for war, because it is the society that determines the prevailing ethics. Zwoliński 2003, p. 145.

  51. 51.

    Best 1994, p. 382.

  52. 52.

    Minear 1971, passim.

  53. 53.

    O’Donovan 2007, p. 508.

  54. 54.

    Clark 2002, p. 886.

  55. 55.

    Hankey 1950, pp. 63 et seq.; Czapliński 1993, p. 55.

  56. 56.

    Antonopoulos 2001, p. 42.

  57. 57.

    Van Schaack 2012, p. 150.

  58. 58.

    Meron 2001, p. 3.

  59. 59.

    See ILC UN Doc. A/CN.4/601 of 29 May 2008, pp. 13 et seq.

  60. 60.

    Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties (1920), Report Presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference, 29 March 1919, AJIL 14, p. 116; Article 6 IMT Charter; Article 3 Code of Crimes against Peace and Security of Humankind; Article 7 Code of Crimes against Peace and Security of Humankind; Article 7 (2) ICTY Statute; Article 6 (2) ICTR Statute; Article 27 (1) ICC Statute. Furthermore, under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court (RPE), ‘abuse of power or official capacity’ is an aggravating circumstance which the Court must take into account (Rule 145 [2] [b] RPE).

  61. 61.

    Report to the President from Justice Robert H. Jackson (1945), Chief of Counsel for the United States in the Prosecution of Axis War Criminals, 7 June 1945, AJIL 39, Supplement Official Documents, p. 182; Glueck 1944, pp. 123–124.

  62. 62.

    See ICJ, Judgment of 14 February 2002 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000), p. 3, ICJ Reports (2002).

  63. 63.

    Ibid., para 51.

  64. 64.

    Paulus 2004, p. 19.

  65. 65.

    Akande 2003, p. 641; Schabas 2004a, p. 81.

  66. 66.

    See UN Doc. S/2013/624 of 21 October 2013.

  67. 67.

    Article 2 (1) European Convention on Extradition; Article 3 (e) Inter-American Convention on Extradition.

  68. 68.

    See Article 3 European Convention on Extradition; Article 4 Inter-American Convention on Extradition.

  69. 69.

    Wierzbicki 1982, p. 113.

  70. 70.

    See Article 1 (2) Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by UNGA Resolution 2312 (XXII) of 14 December 1967.

  71. 71.

    See Article 1 (F) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

  72. 72.

    Wierzbicki 1982, p. 110. See e.g. Article 6 European Convention on Extradition; Article 7 Inter-American Convention on Extradition.

  73. 73.

    See Article 9 Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind; UN Doc. A/CN.4/571 of 7 June 2006, para 51.

  74. 74.

    See e.g. Report of the ICL, Sixty-fourth Session, 7 May-1 June and 2 July-3 August 2012, UN Doc. A/67/10, para 206.

  75. 75.

    See e.g. UNGA Resolutions 2840 (XXIV) of 18 December 1971 and 3074 (XXVIII) of 3 December 1973.

  76. 76.

    The States emphasised that in the case of the crime of aggression Articles 57 (3), 72, 93 (4), and 99 (5) Rome Statute apply. Doubts were only expressed as to the applicability of Article 73 Rome Statute with regard to the protection of documents bearing the seal indicating state secrets of the aggressor State. ICC-ASP/4/32 of 10 June 2010, paras 54–55.

  77. 77.

    See e.g. analysis of the law of the Netherlands in Bakkenes 2011, pp. 49 et seq. and cited there. See also ECtHR, Judgement of 15 June 2006, Applications nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01 (Sirbu and others v. Moldova), para 18; ECtHR, Judgement of 26 March 1987, Application no. 9248/81 (Leander v. Sweden), para 74.

  78. 78.

    For example, the defence counsels in the Tokyo trial complained that many of their motions for evidence were rejected. See Defense Appeal to General MacArthur, 21 November 1948, reprinted in Minear 1971, pp. 204 ff.; see also Röling and Rüter 1977, p. 494.

  79. 79.

    The rights guaranteed to defendants include e.g. the right to remain silent, protection against the burden of evidence being shifted onto the defendant, and guarantee of certain rights during the investigation, i.e. before the trial actual begins, Articles 55, 66, 67 Rome Statute.

  80. 80.

    Weiss 1982, p. 183; Pella 1964, p. 83; Glueck 1966, p. 92.

  81. 81.

    Appleman 1954, p. 48.

  82. 82.

    Leibman 1994, p. 715.

  83. 83.

    Woetzel 1960, p. 112.

  84. 84.

    Article 15 (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; also Article 7 (2) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  85. 85.

    Woetzel 1960, p. 169.

  86. 86.

    IMT Nuremberg, Judgement of 1 October 1946 (Prosecutor v. Goering et al.), in: Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Volume I, Nürnberg, p. 208 (‘But whether action taken under the claim of self-defense was in fact aggressive or defensive must ultimately be subject to investigation and adjudication if inter- national law is ever to be enforced.’).

  87. 87.

    See ECtHR, Judgement of 1 October 1982, Application no. 8692/79 (Piersack v. Belgium), para 30; ECtHR, Judgement of 24 May 1989, Application no. 10486/83, (Hauschildt v. Denmark) para 46.

References

  • Abtahi H (2005) The Islamic Republic of Iran and the ICC. Journal of International Criminal Justice 3:635–648

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ailslieger K (1999) Why the United States Should be Wary of the International Criminal Court. Concerns over Sovereignty and Constitutional Guarantees. Washburn Law Journal 39:80–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Akande D (2003) The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties. Legal Basis and Limits. Journal of International Criminal Justice 1:618–650

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Antonopoulos C (2001) Whatever Happened to Crimes Against Peace? Journal of Conflict and Security Law 6:33–62

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Appleman J (1954) Military Tribunals and International Crimes. Greenwood Press Publishers, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakkenes N (2011) The Crime of Aggression. Individual Criminal Liability for the Crime of Aggression in Parliamentary Democracies. Celsus Legal Publishers, Tilburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni M (2003) Introduction to International Criminal Law. Transnational Publishers, New York

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Beigbeder Y (1999) Judging War Criminals. The Politics of International Justice. Macmillan Press, New York

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Best G (1994) War and Law Since 1945. Clarendon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boeving J (2005) Aggression, International Law, and the ICC. An Argument for the Withdrawal of Aggression from the Rome Statute. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43:557–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Boister N, Cryer R (2008) The Tokyo International Military Tribunal. A Reappraisal. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brackman A (1987) The Other Nuremberg. The Untold Story of the Tokyo War Crimes Trial. William Morrow and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvocoressi P (1947) Nuremberg. The Facts, the Law and the Consequences. Chatto and Windus, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark R (2002) Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements. The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. Leiden Journal of International Law 15:859–890

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coracini A (2009) Evaluating Domestic Legislation on the Customary Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute’s Complementarity Regime. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 725–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyprian T, Sawicki J (1948) Przestępstwa międzynarodowe. Wiedza Powszechna, Lodz

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyprian T, Sawicki J (1967) Ludzie i sprawy Norymbergi Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznan

    Google Scholar 

  • Czapliński W (1993) Skutki prawne nielegalnego użycia siły w stosunkach międzynarodowych. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannenbaum T (2018) The Criminalization of Aggression and Soldiers’ Rights. European Journal of International Law 29:859–886

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson G (2000) Defining Substantive Crimes Within the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. What Is the Crime of Aggression. New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law 19:413–452

    Google Scholar 

  • De Hoon M (2018) The Crime of Aggression’s Show Trial Catch-22. European Journal of International Law 29:919–937

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Diamandesco J (1935) Le problème de l’agression dans le droit international public actuel. Deux aspects de l’organisation répressive: Définition de l’agression et détermination de l’agresseur. Éditions A, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) War, Aggression and Self-Defence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Escarameia P (2004) The ICC and the Security Council on Aggression. Overlapping Competencies? In: Politi M, Nesi G (eds) The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 133–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferencz B (2000) The Crime of Aggression. In: McDonald G K, Swaak-Goldman O (eds) Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law. The Experience of International and National Courts, Vol. I. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 35–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández de Gurmendi S (2002) The Working Group on Aggression at the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. Fordham International Law Journal 25:589–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher G (2002) Romantics at War. Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Glueck Sh (1944) War Criminals. Their Prosecution and Punishment. Alfred Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Glueck Sh (1966) The Nuremberg Trial and Aggressive War. Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzebyk P (2013) Criminal Responsibility for the Crime of Aggression. Routledge, London/New York

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hankey L (1950) Politics, Trials and Errors. Pen in Hand, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Harroff-Travel M (2003) Do Wars Ever End? The Work of the International Committee of the Red Cross When the Guns Fall Silent. International Review of the Red Cross 851:465–496

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan-Doran J, van Ginkel B (1996) Aggression as a Crime under International Law and the Prosecution of Individuals by the Proposed International Criminal Court. Netherlands International Law Review 43:321–351

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jianping L, Zhixiang W (2005) China’s Attitude towards the ICC. Journal of International Criminal Justice 3:608–620

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jurdi N (2013) The Domestic Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression after the International Criminal Court Review Conference Possibilities and Alternatives. Melbourne Journal of International Law 14:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kherad R (2005) La question de la définition du crime d’agression dans le statut de Rome. Entre pouvoir politique du Conseil de securité et compétence judiciaire de la Cour pénale internationale. Revue générale de droit international public 109:331–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2006) Versailles-Nuremberg-The Hague Germany and International Criminal Law. International Lawyer 40:15–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacanilao A (2004) The International Criminal Court in the Balance. Should the Security Council Be Given Role in The Crime of Aggression? Eyes on the ICC 1:98–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibman L (1994) From Nuremberg to Bosnia. Consistent Application of International Law. Cleveland State Law Review 42:705–735

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrus M (2006) A Jewish Lobby at Nuremberg. Jacob Robinson and the Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1945–1946. Cardozo Law Review 27:1651–1665

    Google Scholar 

  • May L (2008) Aggression and Crimes against Peace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2018) International Criminal Justice as a Peace Project. European Journal of International Law 29:835–858

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer B (1996) ‘War Crimes’. The Nuremberg Trial and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Valparaiso University Law Review 30:895–912

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (2001) Defining Aggression for the International Criminal Court. Suffolk Transnational Law Review 25:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Minear R (1971) Victors’ Justice. The Tokyo War Crimes Trial. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Schieke I (2001) Defining the Crime of Aggression Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Leiden Journal of International Law 14:409–430

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy D (2002) U.S. Notification of Intent Not to Become a Party to the Rome Statute. American Journal of International Law 96:724

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich V (2017) The Crime of Aggression and Modes of Liability. Is There Room Only for Principals? Harvard International Law Journal 58:44–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Nsereko D (2003) Defining the Crime of Aggression. An important Agenda Item for the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Acta Iuridica 1:256–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyiri N (1989) The United Nations’ Search for a Definition of Aggression. Peter Lang, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan M (2007) Criminalizing War. Toward a Justifiable Crime of Aggression. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 30:507–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus L (2004) Peace Through Justice? The Future of the Crime of Aggression in a Time of Crisis. Wayne Law Review 50:1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus A (2010) Second Thoughts on the Crime of Aggression. European Journal of International Law 20:1117–1128

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce R (2001) Which of the Preparatory Commission’s Latest Proposals for the Definition of the Crime of Aggression and the Exercise of Jurisdiction Should be Adopted into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court? Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law 15:281–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Pella V (1964) La guerre-crime et les criminels de guerre. Réflexions sur la justice pénale internationale. Ce qu’elle est et ce qu’elle devrait être. Histoire et Société d’Aujourd’hui, Neuchâtel

    Google Scholar 

  • Pompe C (1953) Aggressive War. An International Crime. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling B, Cassese A (1993) The Tokyo Trial and Beyond. Reflections of a Peacemonger. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling B, Rüter C (1977) The Tokyo Judgment, The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (I.M.T.F.E.) 29 April 1946–12 November 1948. APA-University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld F (2012) Individual Civil Responsibility for the Crime of Aggression. Journal of International Criminal Justice 10:249–265

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2018) Criminalizing Aggression. How the Future of the Law on the Use of Force Rests in the Hands of the ICC. European Journal of International Law 2:887–917

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli M, Bouvier A (2003) Un droit dans la guerre? Comité international de la Croix Rouge, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2004a) An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2004b) United States Hostility to the International Criminal Court. It’s All about the Security Council. European Journal of International Law 15: 701–720

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster M (2003) The Rome Statute and the Crime of Aggression. A Gordian Knot in Search of a Sword. Criminal Law Forum 14:1–57

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffer D (2017) The Missing Pieces in Article 8 bis (Aggression) of the Rome Statute. Harvard International Law Journal 58:83–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Solera O (2007) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Defining the Crime of Aggression. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Springrose L (1999) Aggression as a Core Crime in the Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court. St Louis-Warsaw Transatlantic Law Journal 99:151–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahn C (2010) ‘The ‘End’, the ‘Beginning of the End’ or the ‘End of the Beginning’? Introducing Debated and Voices on the Definition of ‘Aggression’. Leiden Journal of International Law 23:875–882

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stein M (2005) The Security Council, the International Criminal Court, and the Crime of Aggression. How Exclusive is the Security Council’s Power to Determine Aggression? Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 16:1–36

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tancredi A (2014) The Russian annexation of the Crimea: questions relating to the use of force. Questions of International Law I: 5–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallgren I (2002) The Sensibility and Sense of International Criminal Law. European Journal of International Law 13:561–595

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor T (1970) Nuremberg and Vietnam. Quadrangle Books, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Trahan J (2002) Defining ‘Aggression’. Why the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court Has Faced such a Conundrum. Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 24:439–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kieft M (2002) Uncertain Risk. The United States Military and the International Criminal Court. Cardozo Law Review 22:2325–2368

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Schaack B (2012) Par in Parem Imperium Non Habet. Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression. Journal of International Criminal Justice 10:133–164

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wald P (2006) International Criminal Courts. A Stormy Adolescence. Virginia Journal of International Law 46:319–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss F (1982) Time Limits for the Prosecution of Crimes Against International Law. British Yearbook of International Law 53:163–195

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki B (1982) O azylach i ekstradycji przestępców. Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, Warsaw

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis J (1976) Prologue to Nuremberg. The Punishment of War Criminals of the First World War. Duke University, Xerox University Microfilms

    Google Scholar 

  • Woetzel R (1960) The Nuremberg Trials in International Law. Stevens & Sons Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A (2018) A Victory for International Rule of Law? Or: All’s Well that Ends Well? The 2017 ASP Decision to Amend the Kampala Amendment on the Crime of Aggression. Journal of International Criminal Justice 16:19–29

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zolo D (2004) Peace through Criminal Law. Journal of International Criminal Justice 2:727–734

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zwoliński A (2003) Wojna. Wybrane zagadnienia. Wydawnictwo WAM, Krakow

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, Gmach Audytoryjny WNPiSM, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland

    Patrycja Grzebyk

Authors
  1. Patrycja Grzebyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrycja Grzebyk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Stefanie Bock

  2. Department of History, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Eckart Conze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Grzebyk, P. (2022). Key Risks and Difficulties of Aggression Trials. In: Bock, S., Conze, E. (eds) Rethinking the Crime of Aggression. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-467-9_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-467-9_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-466-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-467-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)