War of aggression 608199 222870400 2008-07-01T14:47:47Z John Z 239099 replaced dead link using web archive A '''war of aggression''' is a [[military conflict]] waged for the clear purposes of territorial aggrandizement and conquest. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the [[customary international law]]. It is generally agreed by scholars in international law that the military actions of the [[Nazi regime]] in [[World War II]] in its search for so-called "[[Lebensraum]]" are characteristic of a war of aggression. However, aside from this single instance, the definition of a war of aggression is problematic, and fraught with political and legal difficulties, at least as applied to wars since the coming of [[modernity]], due to the multiple layers of justification and qualification that most contemporary [[belligerent]]s attach (or observers ascribe to) to their participation in military action. This problematic definition of a war of aggression is made easier by the fact that purported wars of aggression are usually accompanied by other crimes against the treaty law, or the customary international law, such as [[torture]], [[war crimes|crimes against the laws and customs of war]], [[crimes against humanity]], and/or [[genocide]]. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the [[United Nations Security Council]], and not sanctioned by [[Article 51|Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations]]) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example). The [[Nuremberg Trials|International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg]], which followed [[World War II]], called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the [[supreme crime|supreme international crime]], differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." <ref name="urlMarjorie Cohn: Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime">{{cite web |url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml | author=[[Marjorie Cohn]] |title= Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime |date= [[09 November]] [[2004]] | archiveurl =http://web.archive.org/web/20041110060613/http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml | archivedate = 2004-11-10 | format= |work= [[Truthout.org]] |accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref> Article 39 of the [[United Nations Charter]] provides that the [[United Nations Security Council|Security Council]] shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security". The [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]] refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the [[International Criminal Court]] (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted. ==Sources and definitions of the crime == ===The Nuremberg Principles=== In [[1945]], the [[London Charter of the International Military Tribunal]] defined three categories of crimes, including ''crimes against peace''. This definition was first used by [[Finland|Finnish]] courts to prosecute the aggressors in the [[War-responsibility trials in Finland]]. The principles were later known as the [[Nuremberg Principles]]. In [[1950]], the [[Nuremberg Trials|Nuremberg Tribunal]] defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle 6, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the [[United Nations General Assembly]], as: <ref name="emlyn"> "Skeleton Argument for High Court Judicial Review" Emlyn.org.uk, 2006, webpage: [http://www.emlyn.org.uk/stopwar/rmanson/review/digest.shtml Emlyn-Digest]. </ref><ref name="TOut6T"> "Paul Kamen | Conduct Unbecoming of the Commander-In-Chief", t r u t h o u t, March 2006, webpage: [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030706T.shtml TOut-030706T]. </ref><ref name="Trid"> "Tri-denting It Handbook, 3rd Ed (2001) - Part 6", Trident Ploughshares, Norwich NR2 1NR, 2001, webpage: [http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1079 TridentPS-1079]. </ref> : (i) ''Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;'' : (ii) ''Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)''. See: ''[[Nuremberg Trials]]:'' "The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council, which having sovereign power over Germany could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939." For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting [[World War II]]. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the [[criminal law]] of ''[[jus cogens]]''. It has made formal [[declaration of war]] uncommon after 1945. During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, [[Robert H. Jackson]], stated: : ''To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.'' Associate Supreme Court Justice [[William O. Douglas]] charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.", he wrote. "[[ex post facto law|Law was created ex post facto]] to suit the passion and clamor of the time." [''Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal'', H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, (Torrance, Calif.: 1983).] {{citations missing|section|date=June 2007}} ===The United Nations Charter=== The relevant provisions of the [[Charter of the United Nations]] mentioned in the RSICC article 5.2 were framed to include the [[Nuremberg Principles#Principle VI|Nuremberg Principles]]. The specific principle is ''Principle VI.a'' "[[Crimes against peace]]", which was based on the provisions of the [[London Charter of the International Military Tribunal]] that was issued in 1945 and formed the basis for the post [[World War II]] war crime trials. The Charters provisions based on the Nuremberg Principle VI.a are: * '''Article 1''': ::The Purposes of the [[United Nations]] are: ::#To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the [[peace]], and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of [[justice]] and [[international law]], adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a [[breach of the peace]]; ::#To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of [[equal rights]] and [[self-determination]] of [[peoples]], and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; * '''Article 2, paragraph 4''' ::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. * '''Article 33''' ::The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice''. ::The [[Security Council]] shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. * '''Article 39''' ::The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.<ref>[http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html United Nations Charter]</ref> ===General Assembly Resolution 3314=== On [[December 14]], [[1974]], the [[United Nations General Assembly]] adopted [[Resolution 3314]], which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding under international law, but it is often cited in opposition to military actions.{{Fact|date=June 2007}} This definition makes a distinction between ''aggression'' (which "gives rise to international responsibility") and ''war of aggression'' (which is "a crime against international peace"). Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent. The definition's distinction between an ''act'' of aggression and a ''war'' of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression. The wording of the definition has been criticised by many commentators. Its clauses on the use of armed irregulars are notably vague, as it is unclear what level of "involvement" would entail state responsibility. It is also highly state-centric, in that it deems states to be the only actors liable for acts of aggression. Domestic or transnational insurgent groups, such as those that took part in the [[Sierra Leone Civil War]] and the [[Yugoslav Wars]], were key players in their respective conflicts despite being non-state parties; they would not have come within the scope of the definition. The Definition of Aggression also does not cover acts by international organisations. The two key military alliances at the time of the definition's adoption, [[NATO]] and the [[Warsaw Pact]], were non-state parties and thus were outside the scope of the definition. <ref>Ingrid Detter Delupis, ''The Law of War'', pp. 69-70. Cambridge University Press, 2000</ref> Moreover, the definition does not deal with the responsibilities of individuals for acts of aggression. It is widely perceived as an insufficient basis on which to ground individual criminal prosecutions. <ref> L.F. Damrosch, "Enforcing International Law through Non-forcible Measures", p. 202. ''Recueil De Cours/Collected Courses'', Académie de Droit International de La Haye, 1998</ref> Although this Definition of Aggression has often been cited by opponents of conflicts such as the [[1999]] [[Kosovo War]] and the [[2003]] [[Iraq War]], it has no binding force in [[international law]]. The doctrine of ''[[Nulla poena sine lege]]'' means that, in the absence of binding international law on the subject of aggression, no penalty exists for committing acts in contravention of the definition. It is only recently that heads of state have been indicted over acts committed in wartime, in the cases of [[Slobodan Milošević]] of [[Serbia]] and [[Charles G. Taylor|Charles Taylor]] of [[Liberia]]. However, both were charged with [[war crimes]], i.e. violations of the [[laws of war]], rather than with the broader offence of "a crime against international peace" as envisaged by the Definition of Aggression. The definition is not binding on the Security Council. The [[United Nations Charter]] empowers the General Assembly to make recommendations to the [[United Nations Security Council]] but the Assembly may not dictate to the Council. The resolution accompanying the definition states that it is intended to provide guidance to the Security Council to aid it "in determining, in accordance with the Charter, the existence of an act of aggression". <ref>Yoram Dinstein, ''War, Aggression and Self-Defence'', p. 118. Cambridge University Press, 2003</ref> The Security Council may apply or disregard this guidance as it sees fit. Legal commentators argue that the Definition of Aggression has had "no visible impact" on the deliberations of the Security Council. <ref> M.C. Bassiouni and B.B. Ferencz, "The Crime against Peace", ''International Criminal Law'', I, 313, 334 (M.C. Bassiouni ed., 2nd ed., 1999)</ref> ===Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court=== The [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]] lists the crime of aggression as one of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the [[International Criminal Court]] (ICC). However, Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute states that "The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."<ref>[http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm Part 2. Jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable law]</ref> The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC may adopt such a definition at a review conference scheduled for 2009.<ref>[http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/press/mediaalert/160703press_conf_presentation.pdf Page 4: Jurisdiction of the ICC: Section: The Crime of Aggression](PDF)</ref> A United Nations factsheet on the ICC states: :What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute? :Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.<ref>[http://www.un.org/News/facts/iccfact.htm International Criminal Court] UN website factsheet</ref> ==See also== *[[International law]] *[[International criminal law]] *[[Crime against peace]] *''[[Jus ad bellum]]'' *[[War crime]] *[[List of war crimes]] *[[Legality of the Iraq War]] *[[Nuremberg Principles]] *[[Command responsibility]] == Notes == <references/> == References == List of reference documents (alphabetical by author): * Marjorie Cohn, "Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime", t r u t h o u t, November 2004, webpage: [http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml TruthOut-904A]. * H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, ''Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal'', Torrance, Calif.: 1983. == External links == * Website for t r u t h o u t: [http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml truthout-904A]: has quotation "essentially an evil thing"; accessed 2008-01-16. * Website for Trident Ploughshares, Norwich NR2 1NR, webpage: [http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1079 TridentPS-1079]. <br/> {{International Criminal Law}} [[Category:Wars by type|Aggression]] [[Category:Military law]] [[Category:International criminal law]] [[Category:Crime of aggression]] [[Category:War crimes| ]] [[de:Angriffskrieg]] [[es:Guerra de agresión]] [[he:מלחמה תוקפנית]] [[nl:Aanvalsoorlog]] [[ja:侵略戦争]] [[sr:Агресорски рат]] [[sh:Agresorski rat]] [[fi:Hyökkäyssodan suunnittelu]] [[ur:جارحیت]]