Lesson 5 Crime of Agression Flashcards
(11 cards)
What is the history of the Crime of Aggression (CoA) and the role of GA Resolution 3314?
Nuremberg Trials (1945–46) introduced CoA as ‘crime against peace’. Rome Statute (1998) included it but left it undefined. GA Res. 3314 (1974) provided a non-binding but influential definition, leading to the Kampala Review Conference (2010), which defined CoA in Article 8 bis.
What is the ICC definition of the Crime of Aggression and how does it differ from Nuremberg?
ICC (Article 8 bis) defines CoA as leadership responsibility for acts of aggression that are manifest violations of the UN Charter. Nuremberg lacked a clear definition and targeted broader groups. ICC focuses on senior leaders only and uses language from GA Res. 3314.
Is the Crime of Aggression the ‘supreme crime’? Does the label matter?
Yes, often called the ‘supreme international crime’ as it enables other crimes. The label matters symbolically and politically by highlighting unlawful war-making, though genocide has broader legal recognition.
How is the Crime of Aggression different from other ICC crimes?
CoA was added by Kampala Amendments, requiring separate ratification. It has narrower jurisdiction, targeting leaders only. Article 15 bis limits prosecution of non-party state nationals. Complementarity is weaker due to lack of domestic implementation.
What is the Security Council’s role in prosecuting CoA?
Under Article 15 ter, the UNSC can refer CoA cases, bypassing jurisdictional limits. This is aligned with the UN Charter (Art. 24) but politically problematic due to veto power.
How do Kampala Amendments affect jus ad bellum and humanitarian intervention?
Kampala reinforces the ban on use of force, targeting leaders for aggression. It may complicate unauthorized humanitarian interventions and highlights the ICC’s dependency on state consent and UNSC politics.
Should Denmark ratify the CoA? What are the implications?
Yes, and Denmark did in 2025. It strengthens legal norms, accountability, and the ICC’s legitimacy. States must consider legal reforms, sovereignty, and implications for military operations.
What is the opt-out clause and the 2017 ASP dispute?
States can opt out of CoA jurisdiction under Article 15 bis(4). The 2017 ASP dispute focused on whether the ICC could prosecute nationals of non-ratifying states—compromise confirmed they cannot, without UNSC referral.
Can non-state parties be prosecuted for CoA?
No, unless referred by the UNSC. This creates impunity for powerful non-party states and weakens enforcement.
Which conflicts are relevant for the CoA?
Ukraine–Russia is a clear case but Russia is outside ICC jurisdiction. Israel–Lebanon could become relevant if both ratify. Small states benefit most from ratification.
Does Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fulfill the CoA definition?
Yes, it’s a manifest violation of the UN Charter. ICC cannot prosecute without UNSC referral due to Russia’s non-party status. Still important symbolically and legally for future accountability.
