Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional Attitudes Towards Acts of Aggression

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking the Crime of Aggression

Abstract

Contemporary international law contains quite adequate substantive rules aimed at the prevention and suppression of State acts of aggression but the efficiency of those provisions is weakened by procedural shortcomings inherent, in particular, in the operation of the UN Security Council. Until a comprehensive reform of the United Nations eliminates those procedural deficiencies, the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice should be more active in maintaining international peace and security, and in reacting to threats to the peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression. An important role in the maintenance of international peace and security is played by regional security organisations, as well as by international organs and institutions monitoring compliance, in particular, with international human rights law, international humanitarian law, the law of the sea, and environmental law. By contrast, despite the formal activation of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression as of 17 July 2018, the Court is unlikely to prosecute individuals for the crime of aggression, and domestic prosecutions or, potentially, prosecutions by the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights are more likely.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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 Werle and Jessberger 2014, pp. 11–12; Sayapin 2014, pp. 180–190.

  2. 2.

    See Ipsen 2014, pp. 252–253.

  3. 3.

    See von Arnauld 2014, pp. 60–64.

  4. 4.

    See Alston 2012; Fassbender 2012.

  5. 5.

    Cf. Article 6 UN Charter: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Ipsen 2014, p. 236.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Article 2 (4) UN Charter: 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.

  8. 8.

    See Sayapin 2018a.

  9. 9.

    See Sayapin and Tsybulenko 2018.

  10. 10.

    Sayapin 2014, p. 46, footnotes omitted.

  11. 11.

    Notably, such important regional powers as, for example, Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Japan or South Africa are not permanent members of the Security Council. Whereas Germany and Japan were, for some time after the Second World War, subject to the so-called ‘enemy clause’ (cf. Article 53 [2] UN Charter), Australia, Brazil, India, and South Africa were among the original UN Members and hence, not including them as permanent members in the Security Council is arguable. It is suggested that a possible reform of the UN Security Council should take account of regional powers’ important roles. An even better reform of the UN Security Council would consist in doing away with the status of permanent members altogether.

  12. 12.

    cf. Article 23 (1) UN Charter: The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.

  13. 13.

    See Leffler and Westad 2010.

  14. 14.

    See Sayapin 2014, pp. 48–49, footnotes omitted.

  15. 15.

    UNSC Resolution S/RES/1368 of 12 September 2001.

  16. 16.

    See Sayapin 2018a, pp. 275–281.

  17. 17.

    See Blokker 2005; Wedgwood 2003; Wheatley 2006.

  18. 18.

    See Woolsey 1951; Andrassy 1956.

  19. 19.

    UNGA Resolution 86/262 of 17 March 2014.

  20. 20.

    UNGA Resolution 71/205 of 19 December 2016.

  21. 21.

    UNGA Resolution 72/190 of 19 December 2017.

  22. 22.

    UNGA Resolution 73/263 of 22 December 2018.

  23. 23.

    UNGA Resolution 73/194 of 17 December 2018.

  24. 24.

    See Sayapin 2015, p. 20. See also Kadelbach 2006.

  25. 25.

    cf. Article 92 UN Charter.

  26. 26.

    See ICJ, Judgement of 26 November 1984 (Nicaragua v. United States of America, Case concerning Jurisdiction and Admissibility), para 94, ICJ Reports (1984).

  27. 27.

    See Gray 2003; Gray 2008, at 15. See also Alvarez 1996.

  28. 28.

    See Gray 2008, p. 16.

  29. 29.

    See ICJ, Judgment of 1 April 2011 (Georgia v. Russian Federation, Case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—Preliminary Objections), ICJ Reports (2011).

  30. 30.

    As of this writing, 74 States recognise the ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory, see: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations (accessed 1 March 2021).

  31. 31.

    See documents relative to the proceedings at: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/166 (accessed 1 March 2021).

  32. 32.

    See Franck 1995; Sayapin 2014, pp. 53–54.

  33. 33.

    See Sayapin 2014, pp. 98–104. See also Klein 2002; Orakhelashvili 2005.

  34. 34.

    Sayapin 2014, pp. 54–55.

  35. 35.

    See Gazzini 2003; Wolfrum 1993; Abass 2000; Al-Qahtani 2006.

  36. 36.

    Cf. also Sayapin and Tsybulenko 2018, Appendix I and Sayapin S (2019) ‘The End of Russia’s Hybrid War against Ukraine?’, Opinio Juris, available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2019/01/04/the-end-of-russias-hybrid-war-against-ukraine/ (accessed 1 March 2021).

  37. 37.

    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 2132 (2016) of 12 October 2016.

  38. 38.

    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Resolution 2198 (2018) of 23 January 2018.

  39. 39.

    See Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, Resolution on clear, gross and uncorrected violations of Helsinki Principles by the Russian Federation: http://www.oscepa.org/documents/all-documents/annual-sessions/2014-baku/declaration-2/2540-2014-baku-declaration-eng/file (accessed 1 March 2021).

  40. 40.

    See Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, Resolution on the continuation of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of OSCE commitments and international norms by the Russian Federation: http://old.oscepa.org/meetings/annual-sessions/2015-helsinki-annual-session/2015-helsinki-final-declaration/2282-07 (accessed 1 March 2021).

  41. 41.

    See EU statement on ‘Russia’s Ongoing Aggression against Ukraine and Illegal Occupation of Crimea’, PC.DEL/1558/16, 11 November 2016: https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kosovo/14165/eu-statement-on-russias-ongoing-aggression-against-ukraine-and-illegal-occupation-of-crimea_en (accessed 1 March 2021).

  42. 42.

    See Statement of 18 March 2019 by the North Atlantic Council on Crimea, PR (2019) 039, https://nato.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/r/16FD76B1E5D878B32540EF23F30FEDED/59BEB87FBDEFF95F2438807772DD75D1 (accessed 1 March 2021).

  43. 43.

    See Abass 2017; Ambos 2017.

  44. 44.

    See Sayapin 2019, p. 335.

  45. 45.

    See Sayapin 2009.

  46. 46.

    See reports by the ICC Prosecutor at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/otp/Pages/otp-reports.aspx (accessed 1 March 2021).

  47. 47.

    See Heintze 2013.

  48. 48.

    See Sayapin S (2019) ‘The End of Russia’s Hybrid War against Ukraine?’, Opinio Juris, available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2019/01/04/the-end-of-russias-hybrid-war-against-ukraine/ (accessed 1 March 2021).

  49. 49.

    See Schatz V (2018) ‘Insights from the Bifurcation Order in the Ukraine vs. Russia Arbitration under Annex VII of UNCLOS’, available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/insights-from-the-bifurcation-order-in-the-ukraine-vs-russia-arbitration-under-annex-vii-of-unclos/ (accessed 1 March 2021).

  50. 50.

    As of this writing, 41 States ratified the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression, see: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10-b&chapter=18&lang=en (accessed 1 March 2021).

  51. 51.

    Cf. Article 16 Rome Statute: No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.

  52. 52.

    See Sayapin 2014, pp. 199–222.

  53. 53.

    See Sayapin 2018b.

  54. 54.

    See Sands 2012.

References

  • Abass A (2000) The New Collective Security Mechanism of ECOWAS: Innovations and Problems. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 5:211–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abass A (2017) Historical and Political Background to the Malabo Protocol. In: Werle G, Vormbaum M (eds) The African Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Malabo Protocol. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 11–28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Qahtani M (2006) The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Law of International Organizations. Chinese Journal of International Law 5:129–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston P (2012) The United Nations: No Hope for Reform? In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 38–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez JE (1996) Judging the Security Council. American Journal of International Law 90:1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2017) Genocide (Article 28B), Crimes Against Humanity (Article 28C), War Crimes (Article 28D) and the Crime of Aggression (Article 28M). In: Werle G, Vormbaum M (eds) The African Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Malabo Protocol. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 31–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andrassy J (1956) Uniting for peace. American Journal of International Law 50:563–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B (2012) The Security Council: Progress is Possible but Unlikely. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 52–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Franck T M (1995) The Secretary-General’s Role in Conflict Resolution: Past, Present and Pure Conjecture. European Journal of International Law 6:360–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazzini T (2003) NATO’s Role in the Collective Security System. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 8:231–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2003) The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua. European Journal of International Law 14:867–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2008) International Law and the Use of Force, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heintze H J (2013) Theories on the Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. In: Kolb R, Gaggioli G (eds) Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 53–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen K (2014) Völkerrecht, 6th edn. C. H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S (2006) Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and Other Rules ‒ the Identification of Fundamental Norms. In: Tomuschat C, Thouvenin J M (eds) The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp 21–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein P (2002) Responsibility for Serious Breaches of Obligations Deriving from Peremptory Norms of International Law and United Nations Law. European Journal of International Law 13:1241–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leffler M P, Westad O A (2010) The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Volume II: Crises and Détente. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2005) The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. European Journal of International Law 16:59–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2012) Operationalizing the UN Charter Rules on the Use of Force. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 343–358

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2009) The International Committee of the Red Cross and International Human Rights Law. Human Rights Law Review 9:95–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2014) The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law: Historical Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2015) The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 in the Context of General International Law. Evropsky politicky a pravni diskurz 2:19–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2018a) International Law on the Use of Force: Current Challenges. In: Sadat L N (ed) Seeking Accountability for the Illegal Use of Force: Challenges and Future Prospects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 272–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2018b) A Curious Aggression Trial in Ukraine: Some Reflections on the Alexandrov and Yerofeyev Case. Journal of International Criminal Justice 16:1093–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S (2019) The Crime of Aggression in the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights. In: Jalloh C, Clarke M K, Nmehielle V (eds) The African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights in Context: Development and Challenges. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 314–335

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sayapin S, Tsybulenko E (2018) The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Jus post Bellum. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Arnauld A (2014) Völkerrecht, 2nd edn. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg et al.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood R (2003) The fall of Saddam Hussein: Security Council mandates and preemptive self-defense. American Journal of International Law 97:576–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley S (2006) The Security Council, democratic legitimacy and regime change in Iraq. European Journal of International Law 17:531–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R (1993) Der Beitrag regionaler Abmachungen zur Friedenssicherung: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 52:576–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolsey L H (1951) The ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution of the United Nations. American Journal of International Law 45:129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. KIMEP University School of Law, 2 Abai Ave, Almaty, 050010, Kazakhstan

    Sergey Sayapin

Authors
  1. Sergey Sayapin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergey Sayapin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Stefanie Bock

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

    Eckart Conze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sayapin, S. (2022). Institutional Attitudes Towards Acts of Aggression. 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_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-467-9_8

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation