Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Crime of Aggression and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Armed Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The 1998–2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia War and Its Aftermath in International Legal Perspective

  • 547 Accesses

Abstract

Within international law, the prohibition of aggression has the status of a peremptory norm that is of pivotal interest to the international community as a whole. The concept of aggression forms one of the bases for the exercise of the exceptional powers of the Security Council and since a few years the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction as to the crime of aggression. The importance attached to the prohibition of aggression, however, is not matched by a clear definition or by a frequent use of the concept by international political and judicial bodies. This infrequent use of the concept of aggression stands in sharp contrast to the willingness of States to use the concept as a tool to discredit their political enemies. The Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict largely follows this pattern. While both States extensively accused each other of having committed acts of aggression, the Security Council refrained from using the concept at all. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission dealt with the aggression complaints but construed the prohibition of aggression very narrowly and approached the responsibility for violations of the jus ad bellum as a purely bilateral question and not as an issue that concerns the international community as a whole.

Ige F. Dekker is Emeritus Professor of International Institutional Law at Utrecht University School of Law.

Wouter G. Werner is Professor of International Law at Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. Hersch Lauterpacht’s reading of the League of Nations in Lauterpacht 1936, p. 133. For overlapping arguments in relation to the United Nations system of collective security see, inter alia, Claude 1971, p. 245, Krisch 2012, p. 1243, Tsagourias and White 2013, pp. 3–19.

  2. 2.

    The most radical critique was voiced already in the 1920s by Carl Schmitt. See, inter alia, Schmitt 1988 and Schmitt 1932/1996. See also Morgenthau 1982, Morgenthau and Thompson 1985.

  3. 3.

    See Dinstein 2005, p. 117.

  4. 4.

    Charter of the United Nations, Article 39 in conjunction with Articles 41 and 42.

  5. 5.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, A/RES/3314(XXIX), Annex, Definition of Aggression, Preamble.

  6. 6.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Article 5(1).

  7. 7.

    The International Law Commission gave as one of the examples of a peremptory norm the prohibition of aggression; see ILC Yearbook 1966, vol. II, p. 248. According to the International Court of Justice obligations erga omnes ‘derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression …’, see ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment (Second Phase), 5 February 1970, ICJ Rep 1970, p. 32, para 34.

  8. 8.

    See de Hoogh 1996, pp. 114–136, Tams 2005, pp. 19–47, Orakhelashvilli 2006, pp. 7–82. See also Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, ILC Yearbook 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, pp. 110–116.

  9. 9.

    See Abi-Saab 1999, and further below in Sect. 13.4.

  10. 10.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Preamble and Article 5(2).

  11. 11.

    Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the European Axis (Nuremberg Tribunal), Article 6(a). See also the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) (Tokyo Tribunal), Article 5(a).

  12. 12.

    International Military Tribunal, Judgment, 1946, 1 IMT 171 (Nuremberg Judgment), p. 186.

  13. 13.

    Nuremberg Judgment (above n 12) pp. 219–223. See in the same sense the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Judgment), as published in Röling and Rüter 1977, p. 28. See below in Sect. 13.4.1.

  14. 14.

    See UNGA Res 95 (I), Principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 11 December 1946, A/RES/95(I). A year later the General Assembly of the United Nations asked the International Law Commission (ILC) to formulate these principles. During its second session, the ILC approved the formulation of these principles (ILC Yearbook 1950, vol. II, p. 376) but this document was never adopted by the General Assembly.

  15. 15.

    UNGA Res 380 (V), 17 November 1950, A/RES/380(V), para 1.

  16. 16.

    ILC Yearbook 1996, vol. II, Part Two, p. 42.

  17. 17.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, Preamble (para 4) and Article 5(1).

  18. 18.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) former Article 5(2), which was deleted with the amendments on the crime of aggression (see the two following footnotes and accompanying text).

  19. 19.

    See Resolution on the Crime of Aggression, adopted at the Review Conference of the Assembly of States Parties, held in Kampala, Uganda in 2010, 11 June 2010, ICC-ASP/RC/Res.6. It was decided to suspend the Court’s jurisdiction until at least 30 States had ratified or accepted the amendments to the Statute and a separate decision of the Assembly of States Parties was to be taken to activate the Court’s jurisdiction with that decision not to take place before 1 January 2017. See Akande 2010, Barriga and Grover 2011.

  20. 20.

    See Resolution on the Activation of the Jurisdiction of the Court over the Crime of Aggression, 14 December 2017, ICC-ASP/16/Res.5. For an overview of the developments leading to the activation of the jurisdiction of the Court, see in particular Kress 2018.

  21. 21.

    For instance, both Iraq and Iran claimed to be victims of acts of aggression by the other party during the 1980–1988 Gulf War. See Dekker 1992, pp. 249–251.

  22. 22.

    Letter dated 14 May 1998 from the Chargé d’affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, 14 May 1998, S/1998/396.

  23. 23.

    Letter dated 3 June 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, 3 June 1998, S/1998/459. See also Letter dated 15 May 1998 from the Charge D’affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Eritrea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, 15 May 1998, S/1998/399.

  24. 24.

    Letter dated 12 May 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, 12 May 2000, S/2000/420.

  25. 25.

    Letter dated 18 May 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, 18 May 2000, S/2000/448.

  26. 26.

    See Ferencz 1975.

  27. 27.

    See Röling 1975, pp. 387–403; Stone 1977, pp. 123–152.

  28. 28.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Articles 1 and 5(2).

  29. 29.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Article 2.

  30. 30.

    See Röling 1950.

  31. 31.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Article 2.

  32. 32.

    UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Article 4.

  33. 33.

    See Stone 1977, pp. 40–45; Dinstein 2005, pp. 127–131.

  34. 34.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 5(2).

  35. 35.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 8 bis: Crime of aggression, Article 15 bis: Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu), Article 15 ter: Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral). See for other amendments of the Rome Statute with regard to the crime of aggression, Article 9(1), Article 20(3) and Article 25(3 bis).

  36. 36.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 8 bis (1).

  37. 37.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 8 bis (2).

  38. 38.

    See Understandings regarding the amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression, Annex III to Resolution RC/Res.6, 11 June 2010, Understanding 6. Compare UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Preamble para 5, and Article 2, second part.

  39. 39.

    In different words, one could say that the same holds true for the 1974 Definition of Aggression. For, Article 5(2) provides that ‘A war of aggression is a crime against international peace’, implying that only a ‘war of aggression’ qualifies as an international crime. The second sentence of this Article adds ‘Aggression gives rise to international responsibility’, which in connection to the crime against international peace mentioned in the first sentence of this Article should probably be read as ‘international individual criminal responsibility’. See Dinstein 2005, p. 125.

  40. 40.

    See Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 8 bis (1). See further Sect. 13.4.

  41. 41.

    Understandings regarding the amendments to the Rome Statute (above n 38): Understanding 7.

  42. 42.

    See Akande 2010, Ruys 2018, pp. 906–915, de Hoon 2018, pp. 922–925. See also Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Discussion paper proposed by the Coordinator, 11 July 2002, PCNICC/2002/WGCA/RT.1/Rev.2.

  43. 43.

    See above n 39.

  44. 44.

    Dinstein 2005, p. 125.

  45. 45.

    See de Hoon 2018, p. 925.

  46. 46.

    See on these issues, inter alia, Gray 2018, Orford 2003, Ruys 2010.

  47. 47.

    Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum, Ethiopia’s Claims 1–8, 19 December 2005, PCA Case No. 2001-02, Chapter IV, para. B.1.

  48. 48.

    See further Weeramantry, Chap. 12. See also Gray 2006.

  49. 49.

    Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 47) Chapter III, para 8.

  50. 50.

    The complete text reads as follows: ‘The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof’. UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Article 3(a).

  51. 51.

    Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 47) Chapter III, para 18.

  52. 52.

    Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 47) Chapter III, para 19.

  53. 53.

    Jus Ad Bellum 2005 (above n 47) Chapter III, para 19.

  54. 54.

    ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment (Merits), 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep 1986, p. 14, para 191.

  55. 55.

    In this regard it is indeed ironic, as Christine Gray explains in her critical article, that, on the basis of the Decision on Delimitation of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission of 13 April 2002, Ethiopia was illegally occupying Eritrean territory and thus could be accused of committing an illegal use of armed force; see Gray 2006, pp. 710–712. One may add that in terms of the Claims Commission such a use of force could be qualified as an act of aggression.

  56. 56.

    See Draft Articles on Responsibility of States, with commentaries (above n 8) Part Two, pp. 110–116.

  57. 57.

    See Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, Part Two, Chapter Three.

  58. 58.

    See Draft Articles on Responsibility of States (above n 57) Article 40.

  59. 59.

    See Draft Articles on Responsibility of States (above n 57) Article 41.

  60. 60.

    Charter of the United Nations, Article 39 in conjunction with Articles 41 and 42. As far as the General Assembly is concerned, see, in general the resolution Uniting for Peace (UNGA Res 377 (V), 3 November 1950, A/RES/377(V)). The Assembly determined in quite a few cases the existence of (an act of) aggression, for instance in relation to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (see UNGA Res 46/242, 25 August 1992, A/RES/46/242, and UNGA Res 47/121, 18 December 1992, A/RES/47/121). See ‘Historical review of the developments relating to aggression’, Report prepared by the Secretariat of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 24 January 2002, PCNICC/2002/WGC.A/L.1, pp. 123–128.

  61. 61.

    The proposals made during the negotiations on the Charter of the United Nations to include a definition of aggression in this treaty, as well as an automatic obligation for the Council to take coercive measures in such cases, were expressly rejected at that time; see United Nations Conference on International Organisation, Vol. 12, pp. 296, 348, 381, 445 and 507. This line was reaffirmed in UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Annex, Articles 2 and 4.

  62. 62.

    See ‘Historical review of the developments relating to aggression’ (above n 60) pp. 115–121.

  63. 63.

    See UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (above n 5) Preamble.

  64. 64.

    See Dekker and Post 1992.

  65. 65.

    See Ruys et al 2018.

  66. 66.

    See in particular UNSC Res 660 (1990), 2 August 1990, S/RES/660(1990); UNSC Res 678 (1990), 29 November 1990, S/RES/678(1990); and UNSC Res 687 (1991), 3 April 1991, S/RES/687(1991). In its Res 667 (1990), 16 September 1990, S/RES/667(1990), the Council strongly condemned ‘aggressive acts perpetrated by Iraq against diplomatic premises and personnel in Kuwait ….’

  67. 67.

    See for the International Court of Justice and the use of force in general Gray 2013.

  68. 68.

    Nicaragua v. USA 1986 (above n 54).

  69. 69.

    ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Rep 2005, p. 168.

  70. 70.

    DRC v. Uganda 2005 (above n 69) para 23.

  71. 71.

    See Nicaragua v. USA 1986 (above n 54) para 195; DRC v. Uganda 2005 (above n 69) para 146.

  72. 72.

    ‘The unlawful military intervention by Uganda was of such a magnitude and duration that the Court considers it to be a grave violation of the prohibition of the use of force expressed in Article 2, para 4, of the Charter’, DRC v. Uganda 2005 (above n 69) para 165.

  73. 73.

    See DRC v. Uganda 2005 (above n 69) Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, para 2 and Separate Opinion of Judge Elaraby, para 8.

  74. 74.

    DRC v. Uganda 2005 (above n 69) Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, para 2.

  75. 75.

    DRC v. Uganda 2005 (above n 69) para 345.

  76. 76.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 15 bis. See Barriga and Blokker 2017.

  77. 77.

    See Akande and Tzanakopoulos 2018.

  78. 78.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 15 bis (6)(7).

  79. 79.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 15 bis (8).

  80. 80.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 16.

  81. 81.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 15 ter. See Blokker and Barriga 2017.

  82. 82.

    Rome Statute (above n 17) Article 15 ter (4).

  83. 83.

    The ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda did not have jurisdiction with regard to the crime of aggression.

  84. 84.

    Nuremberg Judgement (above n 12) p. 219; Tokyo Judgment (above n 13), p. 28.

  85. 85.

    See, e.g., Schick 1947, pp. 783–784; Röling 1950, p. 3; David 1988, p. 89 ff. For an overview of the arguments, see Dinstein 2005, pp. 119–121.

  86. 86.

    Röling 1950, p. 4.

  87. 87.

    See above Sect. 13.2.

  88. 88.

    See Greppi and Poli, Chap. 4, and de Guttry, Chap. 5.

  89. 89.

    UNSC Res 1177 (1998), 26 June 1998, S/RES/1177(1998); UNSC Res 1226 (1999), 29 January 1999, S/RES/1226(1999); UNSC Res 1227 (1999), 10 February 1999, S/RES/1227(1999); UNSC Res 1297 (2000), 12 May 2000, S/RES/1297(2000).

  90. 90.

    UNSC Res 1298 (2000), 17 May 2000, S/RES/1298(2000).

  91. 91.

    See above Sect. 13.3.2.

  92. 92.

    Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Decision Number 7: Guidance Regarding Jus ad Bellum Liability, 27 July 2007, PCA Case No. 2001-02, para 5.

  93. 93.

    Decision Number 7 2007 (above n 92).

  94. 94.

    Decision Number 7 2007 (above n 92) para 28.

  95. 95.

    Decision Number 7 2007 (above n 92) para 29.

  96. 96.

    Decision Number 7 2007 (above n 92) paras 29–32.

  97. 97.

    Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Final Award: Ethiopia’s Damages Claims, 17 August 2009, PCA Case No. 2001-02.

  98. 98.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para 290.

  99. 99.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para 312.

  100. 100.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para 289.

  101. 101.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para 312.

  102. 102.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para 308.

  103. 103.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para 308.

  104. 104.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para IX.

  105. 105.

    Ethiopia’s Damages 2009 (above n 97) para XII.

References

  • Abi-Saab G (1999) The Uses of Article 19. EJIL 10:339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akande D (2010) What Exactly was Agreed in Kampala on the Crime of Aggression? See www.ejiltalk.org Accessed October 2010

  • Akande D, Tzanakopoulos A (2018) Treaty Law and ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression. EJIL 29:939–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barriga S, Blokker N (2017) Entry into Force and Conditions for the Exercise of Jurisdiction: Cross-Cutting Issues. In: Kress C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Volume I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 621–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Barriga S, Grover L (2011) A Historic Breakthrough on the Crime of Aggression. AJIL 105:517–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blokker N, Barriga S (2017) Conditions for the Exercise of Jurisdiction Based on Security Council Referrals. In: Kress C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Volume I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 646–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2007) On Some Problematic Aspects of the Crime of Aggression. LJIL 20:841–849

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claude I L Jr (1971) Swords into Plowshares, The Problems and Progress of International Organization, 4th edn. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • David E (1988) L’actualité juridique de Nuremberg. In: Le Procés de Nuremberg: Conséquences et actualisation. Colloque du 27 mars 1987. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 89–114

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoogh A (1996) Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoon M (2015) The Law and Politics of the Crime of Aggression. VU University, Amsterdam. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/75916022/complete+dissertation.pdf Accessed June 2020

  • de Hoon M (2018) The Crime of Aggression’s Show Trial Catch-22. EJIL 29:919–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker I F (1992) Criminal Responsibility and the Gulf War of 1980–1988: The Crime of Aggression. In: Dekker I F, Post H H G (eds) The Gulf War of 1980-1988, The Iran-Iraq War in International Legal Perspective. T.M.C. Asser Instituut /Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Dordrecht, pp 249–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker I F, Post H H G (eds) (1992) The Gulf War of 1980–1988, The Iran-Iraq War in International Legal Perspective. T.M.C. Asser Instituut /Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) War, Aggression and Self-defence, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B (1998) UN Security Council Reform and the Right to Veto: A Constitutional Perspective. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferencz B B (1975) Defining International Aggression: The Search for World Peace. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2006) The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission Oversteps Its Boundaries: A Partial Award? EJIL 17:699–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2013) The International Court of Justice and the Use of Force. In: Tams C J, Sloan J (eds) The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 237–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2018) International Law and the Use of Force, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2007) The Crime of Aggression before the First Review of the ICC Statute. LJIL 20:851–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2018) On the Activation of the ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression. Journal of International Criminal Justice 16:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2012) Introduction to Chapter VII: The General Framework. In: Simma B et al (eds) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Volume II, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1237–1271

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1936) Neutrality and Collective Security. Politica 2:133–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau H (1982) In Defense of the National Interest. University Press of America, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenthau H, Thompson K (1985) Politics Among Nations, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvilli A (2006) Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Orford A (2003) Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Röling B V A (1950) Strafbaarheid van de agressieve oorlog. Inaugurele rede [Criminality of aggressive wars. Inaugural lecture]. Wolters, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling B V A (1975) Die Definition der Aggression [The Definition of Aggression]. In: Delbrück J et al (eds) Recht im Dienst des Friedens [Law in the Service of Peace]. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 387–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling B V A, Rüter F C (eds) (1977) The Tokyo Judgment. Volume I. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2010) Armed Attack and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2018) Criminalizing Aggression: How the Future of the Law on the Use of Force Rests in the Hand of the ICC. EJIL 29:887–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T, Corten O, Hofer A (eds) (2018) The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick F B (1947) The Nuremberg Trial and the International Law of the Future. AJIL 41:770–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1932/1996) The Concept of the Political. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1988) Die Wendung zum Diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff [The Turn to the Discriminating Concept of War], 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Khan D-E, Nolte G, Paulus A (eds) (2012) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. Volumes I, II. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone J (1977) Conflict Through Consensus, United Nations Approaches to Aggression. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams C J (2005) Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tsagourias N, White N D (2013) Collective Security: Theory, Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University School of Law, Newtonlaan 201, 3584 BH, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Ige F. Dekker

  2. Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Wouter G. Werner

Authors
  1. Ige F. Dekker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wouter G. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ige F. Dekker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto DIRPOLIS, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea de Guttry

  2. Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille, Lille, France

    Harry H. G. Post

  3. DILHPS, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Gabriella Venturini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dekker, I.F., Werner, W.G. (2021). The Crime of Aggression and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Armed Conflict. In: de Guttry, A., Post, H.H.G., Venturini, G. (eds) The 1998–2000 Eritrea-Ethiopia War and Its Aftermath in International Legal Perspective. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-439-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-439-6_13

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-438-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-439-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation