Abstract
Starting from the hypothesis of Nuremberg that labels the crime of aggression as the ‘supreme international crime’, this article assesses its validity and describes developments in international criminal law that seem to suggest the current marginalization of aggression among the crimes under international law. The fall of the crime of aggression will be illustrated by the retarding moments before it became a defined and internationally enforceable crime, by the comparatively restricted jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and by the legal controversies surrounding its domestic implementation and prosecution.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
International Military Tribunal, 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 August 1946 to 1 October 1946), at 421.
- 2.
See ICC Statute, Art. 8bis.
- 3.
See Assembly of States Parties, Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, 14 December 2017.
- 4.
Art. 8bis(2) ICC Statute continues by defining the ‘act of aggression’.
- 5.
On the differences to the definition of the crime against peace, see McDougall 2017.
- 6.
International Military Tribunal, supra note 1, at 421.
- 7.
In the same vein, Mégret 2017, at 1414.
- 8.
Dinstein 2017, para. 360.
- 9.
Ibid. Similarly, Cassese 1999, S. 146.
- 10.
- 11.
Nolte and Randelzhofer 2012, para. 6.
- 12.
See Grover 2019, at 166, who relies on the UCDP database.
- 13.
- 14.
See para. 70 of Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, Article 6: Right to life, 3 September 2019, CCCPR/C/GC/36.
- 15.
- 16.
Similarly, ibid. at 1416 et seq.
- 17.
On the legal nature of the nexus requirement, see Ambos 2013, vol II, at 50 et seq.
- 18.
Mégret 2017, at 1416 et seq.
- 19.
Schabas 2004, at 31 et seq.
- 20.
Ibid.
- 21.
Ibid., at 30; Schuster 2003, at 12.
- 22.
Also known as rule against retroactive law or prohibition of ex post facto law.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
International Military Tribunal, supra note 1, at 444.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
Cassese 2008, at 39.
- 28.
Tomuschat 2006, at 835.
- 29.
See also the explanations given by Kelsen 1945, at 6 et seq.
- 30.
Jeßberger 2017, at 297 et seq.
- 31.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948.
- 32.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.
- 33.
UN General Assembly, Resolution 95 (I), 11 December 1946.
- 34.
UN General Assembly, Resolution 177 (II), 21 November 1947.
- 35.
Principle VI only mirrors the language of Article 6(a) IMT Charter, see International Law Commission, Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal (1950). For a full account of the work of the ILC, see Crawford 2017.
- 36.
See operative para. 4, UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974. In detail, see Bruha 2017.
- 37.
- 38.
McDougall 2013, at 40.
- 39.
- 40.
Jeßberger 2017, at 299.
- 41.
For the definition, see supra.
- 42.
See Understanding no. 3, Resolution RC/Res.6, 11 June 2010, Annex III.
- 43.
See ICC Statute, Articles 15bis(2) and 15ter(2).
- 44.
See ICC Statute, Articles 15 bis(3) and 15 ter(3).
- 45.
For the status of ratifications, see https://treaties.un.org/.
- 46.
- 47.
Operative para. 1, Assembly of States Parties, Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, 14 December 2017.
- 48.
See also Kreß and Holtzendorff 2010, at 1212: ‘The (Softly) Consent-Based Pillar’.
- 49.
Resolution RC/Res.6, 11 June 2010.
- 50.
Assembly of States Parties, Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, 14 December 2017.
- 51.
See ICC Statute, Article 13(a).
- 52.
See ICC Statute, Article 13(c).
- 53.
See ICC Statute, Article 12(2)(a).
- 54.
For the jurisdiction upon Security Council referral, see ICC Statute, Article 15ter.
- 55.
See, e.g. the statements on the Afghanistan situation by Trump D, Remarks to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (NYC, 25 September 2018), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-73rd-session-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-ny/; Bolton J, Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats. Speech at the Federalist Society (Washington, D.C., 10 September 2018), https://www.justsecurity.org/60674/national-security-adviser-john-bolton-remarks-international-criminal-court/https://www.justsecurity.org/60674/national-security-adviser-john-bolton-remarks-international-criminal-court/https://www.justsecurity.org/60674/national-security-adviser-john-bolton-remarks-international-criminal-court/, both accessed 1 November 2019. For a similar U.S. position during the drafting of the ICC Statute, see Scheffer 1999, at 26.
- 56.
- 57.
On the principle of territorial jurisdiction, see Cryer et al. 2019, at 52 et seq.
- 58.
Aggressive nationals of non-states parties can still face trial if the UN Security Council refers a situation, Art. 15ter of the ICC Statute. The possibility of a subsequent ad hoc consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC on the basis of Article 12(3) is controversial. In favor Zimmermann and Freiburg 2016, para. 24; Cryer et al. 2019, at 313. In contrast, see Akande and Tzanakopoulos 2018, at 954 et seq.; Barriga and Blokker 2017, at 656.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
See Annex II, Paper submitted by Liechtenstein (April 2017), Report of the Facilitation on the Activation of the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the Crime of Aggression of 27 November 2017, ICC-ASP/16/24, at 22.
- 62.
Ibid.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
See, e.g., Ssenyonjo 2017, at 56 et seq.
- 66.
See Kenya, Declaration of Non-Acceptance, 15 October 2015, https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/other/2015_NV_Kenya_Declaration_article15bis-4.pdf. Accessed 1 November 2019.
- 67.
For the different options of softly opting out, see OP 1(a), [Draft resolution] Activation of the Jurisdiction of the Court over the Crime of Aggression, 13 December 2017, ICC-ASP/16/L.9, https://ejiltalk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ICC-ASP-16-L9-ENG-CoA-resolution-13Dec17-2200.pdf (last visited 20 December 2019). For a critique, see Hartig 2018; Stürchler 2018. Similarly, Ferencz 2018, at 3.
- 68.
- 69.
Assembly of States Parties, Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, 14 December 2017.
- 70.
Clark 2020, para. 45.
- 71.
Trahan 2018, at 213.
- 72.
- 73.
See Kreß and von Holtzendorff 2010, at 1195 et seq.
- 74.
In that vein, Trahan 2018, at 232.
- 75.
As a subsequent agreement or practice, it would be only one factor relevant to the contextual interpretation of Article 15bis(4). As a supplementary means of interpretation, it would be at the same interpretative level as the preparatory work of Article 15bis(4). See also the discussion of Akande and Tzanakopoulos 2018, 943 et seq.; Stürchler 2018; Grover 2019, at 163.
- 76.
On the practice of treaty negotiators in applying constructive ambiguity, see Hafner 2013, at 107 et seq.
- 77.
Clark 2016, paras 1 et seq.
- 78.
Clark 2020, para. 45.
- 79.
- 80.
Enforcement shall be understood in a broader sense, referring to the legislative act of criminalizing aggression, to the measures of the judiciary to adjudicate aggression and to the attempts of the executive to ensure its enforcement in the technical sense.
- 81.
Kleffner 2009, at 309 et seq.
- 82.
See ICC Statute, preambular para. 10, Articles 1, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
- 83.
See Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarization and Witness Proofing, 8 November 2006, para. 34, fn. 38.
- 84.
- 85.
For a definition of complementarity, see Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06), Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarization and Witness Proofing, 8 November 2006, para. 34, fn. 38.
- 86.
See Commentary to Article 8, para. 2, International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind with Commentaries (1996).
- 87.
Statement by Legal Adviser Koh H H at the Review Conference, 4 June 2010, as reproduced in Koh and Buchwald 2015, at 274. See the similar concerns expressed by in Commentary to Article 8, para. 14, International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind with Commentaries (1996).
- 88.
See 2004 Princeton Report, in Barriga and Kreß 2012, at 433 et seq.
- 89.
- 90.
McDougall 2013, at 314 et seq.
- 91.
Review Conference, Resolution RC/Res.6 of 12 June 2010.
- 92.
See Understanding 5, Review Conference, Resolution RC/Res.6 of 12 June 2010, Annex III.
- 93.
van Schaack 2012, at 161.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
See Stahn 2019, at 226.
- 98.
For the consensual jurisdiction, see Sect. 50.3.2.
- 99.
See Hartig 2019: Afghanistan, Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, Samoa and Slovenia.
- 100.
See supra note 86.
- 101.
On the principle of territoriality, see Ambos 2013, vol III, at 211 et seq.
- 102.
On the active personality principle, see Ambos 2013, vol III, at 217 et seq.
- 103.
- 104.
- 105.
- 106.
Hartig 2019.
- 107.
Reisinger Coracini 2017, at 1067 et seq.
- 108.
See <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/25/ukraine-ex-president-viktor-yanukovych-found-guilty-of-treason> , accessed 8 January 2020.
- 109.
Sayapin 2018.
- 110.
See Dinstein 1966, at 408.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
Which seems to be possible in light of U.N. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, Article 6: Right to life, 3 September 2019, CCCPR/C/GC/36, para. 70.
- 114.
On the protective principle and the passive personality principle, see Ambos 2013, vol III, at 220 et seq.
- 115.
- 116.
For a similar reasoning on the basis of the Kampala outcome, see Koh and Buchwald 2015, at 275 et seq.
- 117.
- 118.
Clark 2010, at 705. See also Paper submitted by Liechtenstein (April 2017), in Report of the Facilitation on the Activation of the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the Crime of Aggression of 27 November 2017, ICC-ASP/16/24, Annex II, at 20 whereby one half of the delegations wanted a no-consent regime.
- 119.
For a similar distinction between the legally available and practically possible jurisdictional regime as discussed in Rome, see Scharf 2001, at 77.
- 120.
- 121.
See Ambos 2013, vol III, at 207.
- 122.
See The Case of the S.S. ‘Lotus’, Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgment of 7 September 1927, PCIJ ser. A, no. 10. For a detailed analysis, see Jeßberger, 2011, at 198 et seq.
- 123.
Dissenting Opinion van der Wyngaert to Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, International Court of Justice, judgment of 14 February 2002 ICJ, Arrest Warrant, para 51: ‘It follows from the “Lotus” case that a State has the right to provide extraterritorial jurisdiction on its territory unless there is a prohibition under international law.’ See also Scharf 2012, at 379 et seq.
- 124.
- 125.
See ICJ Statute, Article 38(1)(b).
- 126.
- 127.
Given that the jurisdiction of these three states is dependent upon the receipt and denial of a request for extradition, some tend not to describe it as universal jurisdiction, but ‘representation principle’ or ‘vicarious administration of justice’. See, e.g. Reydams 2003, 34 et seq.
- 128.
For Hartig 2019, at 492. For Cyprus, see Reply of the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cyprus to the United Nation on the Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, 74th session, https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/74/universal_jurisdiction.shtml, accessed 20 January 2020.
- 129.
For the reasons, see German Government Draft, BT-Drs. 18/8621, at 12 et seq.
- 130.
Hartig 2019, at 491.
- 131.
Reisinger Coracini 2017, at 1068 et seq.
- 132.
Another way of addressing the low number of hard state practice is suggested by Kreß. He contends that customary law rules can be deduced from well-established principles underlying these instances of state practice if they naturally flow from such principles. See Written Observations of Professor Claus Kreß as amicus curiae, ICC, Al Bashir (Jordan), 18 June 2018, ICC-02/05-01/09 OA2, para. 9; Kreß 2002, at 836.
- 133.
Only 61 universal jurisdiction cases resulted in a completed trial between 1961 and 2017, see Langer and Eason 2019, at 788.
- 134.
Bleckmann 1977, at 505.
- 135.
Ibid. at 506.
- 136.
In detail see Commentary to Draft Conclusion 2, para. 5, International Law Commission (2018) Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/73/10.
- 137.
For studies on universal jurisdiction, see Langer and Eason 2019; Amnesty International (2012), Universal Jurisdiction. A Preliminary Survey of Legislation Around the World—2012 Update; Trial International (2019), Evidentiary Challenges in Universal Jurisdiction Cases. Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2019. See also the work of the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, ‘The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction’ since its Sixty-Fourth Session, which documents replies by states, https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/74/universal_jurisdiction.shtml, accessed 20 January 2020. For an analysis of state practice, see e.g. Kreß 2002, at 832 et seq.
- 138.
- 139.
‘International peace and security’ is mentioned 33 times in the UN Charter.
- 140.
Werle and Jeßberger 2014, para. 1479.
- 141.
For the list of ratifying states, see https://treaties.un.org/.
- 142.
See Institute for Economics & Peace, World Peace Index 2019, at 6, http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2019/07/GPI-2019web.pdf, accessed 20 January 2020.
- 143.
At least according to Brown 2014, at 663 who looked at conflicts between 1946 and 2001.
- 144.
- 145.
- 146.
- 147.
See ICC Statute, Article 8bis(1).
- 148.
Those are only relevant if the aggressor state decides to prosecute its own nationals. Constitutional immunities are technically unable to bar proceedings before foreign courts, Fox and Webb 2013, at 541.
- 149.
In detail, see ibid. at 537 et seq.
- 150.
For the current status, see https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/4_2.shtml. Accessed 2 February 2020.
- 151.
The final adoption takes place after the second reading of all draft articles.
- 152.
On 20 July 2017, 21 members voted in favor, eight against, one member abstained. See https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/4_2.shtml. Accessed 2 February 2020. Voting is a rare at the ILC, see Tladi 2019, at 171; Šturma 2019, at 36.
- 153.
See A/CN.4/L.893. For the reasons why the crime of aggression was not included, see Special Rapporteur Escobar Hernández C (2016), Fifth Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, International Law Commission, A/CN.4/701, paras 222 et seq.; Statement of the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee, Rajput A, International Law Commission, 20 July 2017, at 7 et seq.
- 154.
International Law Commission, Draft Article 6(2) provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee at the sixty-seventh Session, 29 July 2015; Fox and Webb 2013, at 564.
- 155.
This is how Gómez-Robledo untechnically described the ILC members that constantly oppose draft Article 7, see International Law Commission, Provisional Summary Record of the 3486th meeting of 19 July 2019, A/CN.4/SR.3486, at 10.
- 156.
See International Law Commission, Report of the Sixty-Ninth Session in 2017, A/72/10, at 181 et seq. See also the symposium on ‘The Present and Future of Foreign Official Immunity’, in AJIL 2018:112, 1 et seq., where most of the contributors are those members that opposed Draft Article 7.
- 157.
International Military Tribunal, supra note 1, at 447.
- 158.
- 159.
- 160.
- 161.
See International Military Tribunal, supra note 1, at 447. See also Special Rapporteur Escobar Hernández C (2016), Fifth Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, International Law Commission, A/CN.4/701, para. 150 who has noticed this ‘polysemic use’ in case law. For a critical view, see O’Keefe 2015, para. 10.73.
- 162.
See e.g. Gaeta 2002, at 981; Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, International Court of Justice, judgment of 14 February 2002 ICJ, Arrest Warrant, para. 58.
- 163.
See Commentary to Article 5, para. 6, International Law Commission, Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind with Commentaries (1996).
- 164.
See, e.g. Special Rapporteur Escobar Hernández C (2016), Fifth Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, International Law Commission, A/CN.4/701, para. 222.
- 165.
Such as the trials against Sakai, Isogai, Tani and Tanka.
- 166.
Such as the trials against Wehrmacht Generals. For a summary, see Ginsburgs 2000.
- 167.
Such as the trial against Greiser.
- 168.
Such as the follow-up trials with crime of aggression charges before the U.S. Military Tribunals in the I.G. Farben case, the Krupp et al. case, the von Weizäcker et al. case and the von Leeb et al. case. However, one may question the relevance of these cases for the question of immunities as the tribunals have been established by occupying powers, see below and Kreicker 2007, vol I, at 194.
- 169.
The fact that they prosecuted former German state officials without considering immunities may indicate their non-applicability. On the other hand, one may discuss whether factors such as the nature of the tribunals or the surrender of Germany and Japan may render the question of immunities obsolete.
- 170.
Sayapin 2018, at 1097. According to Sayapin, immunity was only invoked in respect of war crimes, but it is very likely that the Court would have rejected functional immunity as it alluded to state responsibility held by Russia elsewhere in the judgment.
- 171.
In 2017 and 2018, three states of the General Assembly openly welcomed the exclusion of the crime of aggression from the list of Draft Article 7 (Czech Republic, Hungary and Belarus) and six states criticized it (Germany, Ukraine, Portugal, Slovenia, Estonia and Nicaragua).
- 172.
See Article 2 of the Draft Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (version 02/10/2019), https://www.centruminternationaalrecht.nl/mla-initiative, accessed 8 January 2020.
- 173.
See Article 2 of the Draft Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (version 02/10/2019), https://www.centruminternationaalrecht.nl/mla-initiative, accessed 8 January 2020.
- 174.
Annex I, Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016.
References
Akande D (2010) Prosecuting Aggression: The Consent Problem and the Role of the Security Council. Law and Armed Conflict Working Papers, Oxford Institute for Ethics.
Akande D, Tzanakopoulos A (2018) Treaty Law and ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression. Eur J Int Law 29: 939–959
Ambos K (2013) Treatise on International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, vol I-III
Barriga S, Blokker N (2017) Conditions for the Exercise of Jurisdiction Based on State Referrals and Proprio Motu Investigations. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol I, pp 652-674
Barriga S, Kreß C (eds) (2012) The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bassiouni MC (2001) Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes. Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice. Virginia Journal of International Law 42:81–162.
Bassiouni MC (2011) Crimes Against Humanity. Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bleckmann A (1977) Zur Feststellung und Auslegung von Völkergewohnheitsrecht. ZaöRV 37:504-529
Brown D (2014) Why the Crime of Aggression will not Reduce the Practice of Aggression. International Politics 51:648-670
Bruha T (2017) The General Assembly’s Definition of the Act of Aggression. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol I, pp 142–177
Cassese A (1999) The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections. Eur J of Int Law 10:144–171
Cassese A (2008) International Criminal Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones J (2002) The Rome Statute: A Tentative Assessment. In: Cassese A et al. (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1901–1914.
Clark R S (2010) Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Considered at the First Review Conference on the Court, Kampala, 31 May-11 June 2010, Goettingen. J. Int’l L. 2:689-711
Clark R S (2011) Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression. In: Stahn C, El Zeidy M M (eds) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 721–744
Clark R S (2015) The Crime of Aggression. In: Stahn C (ed) Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 778-800
Clark R S (2016) Article 119. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
Clark R S (2020) Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression: International Criminal Court (ICC). Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/home/mpil, accessed 10 January 2020.
Crawford J (2017) The International Law Commission’s Work on Aggression. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol I, pp 233–243
Cryer R, Robinson D, Vasiliev S (2019) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dinstein Y (1966) Par in Parem non Habet Imperium. Israel Law Review, 1:407-420
Dinstein Y (2017) War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Ferencz D M (2018) Aggression is no Longer a Crime in Limbo. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, FICHL Policy Brief Series No. 88
Foley B J (2015) Mobilising Law on the Side of Peace: Security Council Reform and the Crime of Aggression. In Linton S et al. (eds) For the Sake of Present and Future Generations. Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 52–71
Fox H, Webb P (2013) The Law of State Immunity, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gaeta P (2002) Official Capacity and Immunities. In: Cassese A et al. (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 975-1002
Gaeta P (2012) The Need Reasonably to Expand National Criminal Jurisdiction over International Crimes. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing Utopia. The Future of International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 596-606
Geneuss J (2013) Völkerrechtsverbrechen und Verfolgungsermessen. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Ginsburgs G (2000) Light Shed on the Story of Wehrmacht Generals in Soviet Captivity. Criminal Law Forum 11:101-120
Glueck S (1946) The Nuremberg Trial and Aggressive War. Knopf, New York
Grover L (2019) Activating the Crime of Aggression Amendments: A Look Ahead. In: Werle G, Zimmermann A (eds) The International Criminal Court in Turbulent Times. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 156–172
Hafner G (2013) Subsequent Agreements and Practice: Between Interpretation, Informal Modification, and Formal Amendment. In: Nolte G (ed) Treaties and Subsequent Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 105-122
Hartig A (2018) Dubious negotiations in New York: Did France and the UK come to blow it up? https://ilg2.org/author/annegretlhartig/, accessed 10 January 2020
Hartig A (2019) Post Kampala: The Early Implementers of the Crime of Aggression. J Int Crim Justice 17:485–493
Heller K J (2012) The Uncertain Legal Status of the Aggression Understandings. J Int Crim Justice 10:229–248
Jescheck H-H (1952) Die Verantwortlichkeit der Staatsorgane nach Völkerstrafrecht. Röhrscheid, Bonn
Jeßberger F (2011) Der transnationale Geltungsbereich des deutschen Strafrechts. Grundlagen und Grenzen der Geltung des deutschen Strafrechts für Taten mit Auslandsberührung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Jeßberger F (2017) The Modern Doctrinal Debate on the Crime of Aggression. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol I, pp 287-306
Jeßberger F (2018) Implementing Kampala: The New Crime of Aggression under the German Code of Crimes against International Law. In: Böse M et al. (eds) Justice Without Borders. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 180–201
Jurdi N N (2013) The Domestic Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression After the International Criminal Court Review Conference: Possibilities and Alternatives. Melbourne J Int L 14:129-148
Kelsen H (1945) The Rule Against Ex Post Facto Laws and the Prosecution of the Axis War Criminals. Judge Advocate Journal 3:1–11
Kelsen H (1947) Will the Judgment in the Nuremberg Trial Constitute a Precedent in International Law? Int L Quarterly 1:153–171.
Kleffner J K (2009) Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Koh H H, Buchwald T F (2015) The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective. American J Int Law 109:257-295
Kreicker H (2007) Völkerrechtliche Exemtionen, vol I-II. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Kreicker H (2017) Immunities. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, vol I, pp 675–703
Kreß C (2002) Völkerstrafrecht und Weltrechtspflegeprinzip im Blickfeld des Internationalen Gerichtshofs. ZStW 114:818–849.
Kreß C (2018) On the Activation of ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression. J Int Crim Justice 16:1–17
Kreß C, von Holtzendorff L (2010) The Kampala Compromise on the Crime of Aggression. J Int Crim Justice 8:1179-1217
Langer M, Eason M (2019) The Quiet Expansion of Universal Jurisdiction. Eur J of Int L 30:779–817
Mahony C (2015) The Justice Pivot: U.S. International Criminal Law Influence from Outside the Rome Statute. Georgetown J Int L 46:1071-1134
Matheson M J, Scheffer D (2016) The Creation of the Tribunals. American J of Int L 110:173–190
McDougall C (2013) The Crime of Aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McDougall C (2017) The Crimes Against Peace Precedent. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 49-112
McDougall C (2018) Protecting Civilians by Criminalising the Most Serious Forms of the Illegal Use of Force: Activating the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression. In: Lattimer M, Sands P (eds) The Grey Zone. Civilian Protection Between Human Rights and the Laws of War. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 377-396
Mégret F (2017) What is the Specific Evil of Aggression? In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1398-1453
Newton M A (2016) How the International Criminal Court Threatens Treaty Norms. Vanderbilt J Transnat L 49:371–432
Nolte G, Randelzhofer A (2012) Article 51. In: Simma B et al. (eds) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Nsereko D (1999) The International Criminal Court: Jurisdictional and Related Issues. Criminal Law Forum 10:87–120Oeter S (2013) Das Verbrechen der Aggression, die Konferenz von Kampala und das deutsche Strafrecht. In: Jeßberger F, Geneuss J (eds) Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen’ Völkerstrafrechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 101–122
Oeter S (2013) Das Verbrechen der Aggression, die Konferenz von Kampala und das deutsche Strafrecht. In: Jeßberger F, Geneuss J (eds) Zehn Jahre Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. Bilanz und Perspektiven eines ‘deutschen’ Völkerstrafrechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 101–122
Ohlin J D (2017) The Crime of Bootstrapping. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1454-1479
O’Keefe R (2015) International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (The Oxford International Law Library), Oxford
Orakhelashvili A (2015) Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Reisinger Coracini A (2017) (Extended) Synopsis: The Crime of Aggression under Domestic Criminal Law. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1038-1078
Reydams L (2003) Universal Jurisdiction. International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ruys T (2017) Justiciability, Complementarity and Immunity: Reflections on the Crime of Aggression. Utrecht Law Review 13:18-33
Ryngaert C (2008) Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sadat L N, Carden S R (2000) The New International Criminal Court: An Uneasy Revolution, Georgetown Law Journal 88:381–474
Sayapin S (2018) A Curious Aggression Trial in Ukraine. Some Reflections on the Alexandrov and Yerofeyev Case. J Int Crim Justice 16:1093–1104
Schabas W A (2004) Origins of the Criminalization 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, Hants, pp 17-32
Schabas W A (2016) The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schabas W A, El Zeidy M M (2016) Article 17. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
Schabas W A, Pecorella G (2016) Article 12. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
Scharf M P (2001) The ICC’s Jurisdiction Over the Nationals of Non-Party States: A Critique of the U.S. Position. Case Western Reserve J Int L 64:68–117
Scharf M P (2012) Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression. Harvard Int L J, 53: 357-389
Scheffer D (1999) The United States and the International Criminal Court. American J Int L 93:1-123
Schick F B (1947) The Nuremberg Trial and the International Law of the Future. American J Int L 41:770–794
Schmitt C (1994) Das internationalrechtliche Verbrechen des Angriffskrieges und der Grundsatz ‘Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege’. In: Quaritsch H (ed) [author, insert title publication], Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
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
Schwelb E (1946) Crimes Against Humanity. British Year Book of International Law 23:178–226
Simons W B (1990) The Jurisdictional Bases of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In: Ginsburgs G, Kudriavtsev VN (eds) The Nuremberg Trial and International Law. Nijhoff, pp 39–59
Solera O (2007) Defining the Crime of Aggression. Cameron May, London
Ssenyonjo M (2017) The Implementation of the Proprio Motu Authority of the Prosecutor in Africa. In: Jalloh C, Bantekas I (eds) The International Criminal Court and Africa. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 38-63
Stahn C (2016) The ICC, Pre-Existing Jurisdictional Treaty Regimes, and the Limits of the Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Doctrine. A Reply to Michael Newton. Vanderbilt J Transnat L 49:443–454
Stahn C (2019) A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Strapatas N (2010) Complementarity and Aggression: A Ticking Time Bomb? In: Stahn C, van den Herik L (eds) Future Perspectives on International Criminal Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Stürchler N (2018) The Activation of the Crime of Aggression in Perspective. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-activation-of-the-crime-of-aggression-in-perspective/, accessed 10 January 2020
Šturma P (2019) The Rome Statute of the ICC and the Recent Works of the International Law Commission. In: Šturma P (ed) The Rome Statute of the ICC at its Fifteenth Anniversary. Achievements and Perspectives. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 27–41
Tladi D (2019) The International Law Commission’s Recent Work on Exceptions to Immunity: Charting the Course for a Brave New World in International Law? Leiden J Int L 32:169–187
Tomuschat C (2006) The Legacy of Nuremberg. J Int Crim Justice 4:830–844
Trahan J (2018) From Kampala to New York—The Final Negotiations to Activate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the Crime of Aggression. Int Crim L Rev 18:197–243
Triffterer O, Burchard C (2016) Article 27. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
van Schaack B (2012) Par in Parem Imperium Non Habet: Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression. J Int Crim Justice 10:133-164
Veroff J (2016) Reconciling the Crime of Aggression and Complementarity: Unaddressed Tensions and a Way Forward. Yale L J 125:730-772
Weigend T (2005) Grund und Grenzen universaler Gerichtsbarkeit. In: Arnold J et al. (eds) Menschengerechtes Strafrecht. Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 955–976
Weigend T (2012) ‘In General a Principle of Justice’: The Debate on the ‘Crime against Peace’ in the Wake of the Nuremberg Judgment. J Int Crim Justice 10:41–58
Weisbord N (2019) The Crime of Aggression. The Quest for Justice in an Age of Drones, Cyberattacks, Insurgents, and Autocrats. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wenaweser C, Barriga S (2015) Forks in the Road: Personal Reflections on Negotiating the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression. In: Linton S et al. (eds) For the Sake of Present and Future Generations. Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 281–297
Werle G, Jeßberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Werle G, Jeßberger F (2020) Vor §§ 3 ff. In: Rissing-van Saan R et al. (eds) Strafgesetzbuch. Leipziger Kommentar: Großkommentar, 13th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin
Woetzel R K (1960) Nuremberg Trials in International Law. Frederick Praeger
Wrange P (2017) The Crime of Aggression, Domestic Prosecutions and Complementarity. In: Kreß C, Barriga S (eds) The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, vol I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 704-751
Wright Q (1947) The Law of the Nuremberg Trial. American J Int L 41:38-72
Yang X (2012) State Immunity in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zimmermann A, Freiburg E (2016) Article 15 bis. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich
Zimmermann A, Freiburg-Braun E (2019) Aggression under the Rome Statute. C.H. Beck, Munich
Zolo D (2007) Who is Afraid of Punishing Aggressors?: On the Double-Track Approach to International Criminal Justice. J Int Crim Justice 5:799–807
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hartig, A.L. (2022). The Crime of Aggression: The Fall of the Supreme International Crime?. In: Sayapin, S., Atadjanov, R., Kadam, U., Kemp, G., Zambrana-Tévar, N., Quénivet, N. (eds) International Conflict and Security Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_50
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-515-7_50
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-514-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-515-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)