Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense}}
{{About|the type of military conflict|the metal album|War of Aggression (album)}}
[[File:German soldiers remove the Polish border crossing in Sopot during the first stages of the Invasion of Poland (48661789227).png|thumb|265x265px|Colored Image of [[Free City of Danzig Police|Danzig Police]] re-enacting the destruction of a Polish border post.]]
A '''war of aggression''', sometimes also '''war of [[conquest]]'''<!-- redirected here--->, is a [[military conflict]] waged without the justification of [[self-defense]], usually for territorial gain and subjugation, in contrast with the concept of a [[just war theory|just war]].
Wars without [[legality#International law|international legality]] (i.e. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the [[United Nations Security Council]]) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression<!-- IMHO, the next phrase cancels this by justifying the modern viewpoint: {{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}
--- this is clearly lawyerese and lawyer reasoning, as it should be in
--- the realm of international laws and reasoning.
Line 16:
--->; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a [[Territorial dispute|boundary dispute]] where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example).
In the judgment of the [[Nuremberg Trials|International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg]], which followed [[World War II]], "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an [[War crime|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."<ref name="judgment">{{citation | title=Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals: The Nazi Regime in Germany |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common |author=The International Military Tribunal for Germany |date=1946-09-30 |publisher=The Avalon Project, Yale University}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Broomhall|first=Bruce |title=International justice and the International Criminal Court |year=2003 |publisher=Oxford University Press|edition=2|pages=46|isbn= 978-0-19-925600-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-Ni6Qy2E9KwC&pg=PA46 }}</ref>
Article 39 of the [[United Nations Charter]] provides that the UN 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".{{War}}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. At the [[Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|Kampala Review Conference]] on 11 June 2010, a total of 111 [[States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|State Parties to the Court]] agreed by [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] to adopt a [[Resolution (law)|resolution]] accepting the definition of the crime and the conditions for the exercise of [[jurisdiction]] over this crime.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf|title=Resolution RC/Res.6 !|access-date=14 May 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320072358/http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf|archive-date=20 March 2012}}</ref> The relevant amendments to the Statute entered into force on July 17, 2018 after being ratified by 35 States Parties.<ref>{{cite news |last=Whiting |first=Alex |url=https://www.justsecurity.org/49859/crime-aggression-activated-icc-matter/ |title=Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter? |work=[[Just Security]] |location=New York |publisher=[[New York University School of Law]] |date=2017-12-19 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220513084051/https://www.justsecurity.org/49859/crime-aggression-activated-icc-matter/ |archive-date=2022-05-13 |access-date=2022-05-16 }}</ref>▼
▲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. At the [[Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|Kampala Review Conference]] on 11 June 2010, a total of 111 [[States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|State Parties to the Court]] agreed by [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] to adopt a [[Resolution (law)|resolution]] accepting the definition of the crime and the conditions for the exercise of [[jurisdiction]] over this crime.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf|title=Resolution RC/Res.6 !|access-date=14 May 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320072358/http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf|archive-date=20 March 2012}}</ref> The relevant amendments to the Statute entered into force on July 17, 2018 after being ratified by 35 States Parties.<ref>{{cite news |last=Whiting |first=Alex |url=https://www.justsecurity.org/49859/crime-aggression-activated-icc-matter/ |title=Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter? |work=[[Just Security]] |location=New York |publisher=[[New York University School of Law]] |date=2017-12-19 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220513084051/https://www.justsecurity.org/49859/crime-aggression-activated-icc-matter/ |archive-date=2022-05-13 |access-date=2022-05-16 }}</ref>
Possibly the first trial for waging aggressive war is that of the Sicilian king [[Conradin]] in 1268.<ref>{{cite book|title=An introduction to international criminal law and procedure|last=Cryer |display-authors=etal|first=Robert|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0-521-13581-8|edition=2nd|location=Cambridge [UK]|pages=312}}</ref>
Line 28 ⟶ 26:
{{blockquote|Originally President Wilson resisted the effort to brand Germany with war guilt, but French and British leaders forced him to compromise. Naming Germany an 'aggressor' introduced the concept into positive international law.<ref>{{cite book|author=Peter H. Maguire|title=Law and War: International Law and American History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0qM8eRj3SCMC&pg=PT89|date=2013|edition=2nd|publisher=Columbia UP|page=89|isbn=9780231518192}}</ref>}}
[[File:Mussolini and Hitler 1940 (retouched).jpg|thumb|upright|Italian fascist leader [[Benito Mussolini]] and Nazi Germany's leader [[Adolf Hitler]] in 1940]]
The [[Japanese invasion of Manchuria]] had a significant negative effect on the moral strength and influence of the [[League of Nations]]. As critics had predicted, the League was powerless if a strong nation decided to pursue an aggressive policy against other countries, allowing a country such as Japan to commit blatant aggression without serious consequences. [[Adolf Hitler]] and [[Benito Mussolini]] were also aware of this, and ultimately both followed Japan's example in aggression against their neighbors: in the case of Italy, [[Second Italo-Ethiopian War|against Ethiopia]] (1935–1937) and [[Italian invasion of Albania|Albania]] (1939); and Germany, [[Munich Agreement|against Czechoslovakia]] (1938–1939) and [[Invasion of Poland|Poland]] (1939).<ref>Ben Walsh, ''GCSE Modern World History - second edition'' 2001, p 247 {{ISBN|978-0719577130}}</ref>
In November 1935, the League of Nations condemned Italy's aggression in Ethiopia and imposed economic sanctions.<ref>{{cite book |last=Palla |first=Marco |series=Interlink Illustrated Histories |title=Mussolini and Fascism |year=2000 |publisher=Interlink Books |location=New York |isbn=978-1-56656-340-6|page=104}}</ref> The prominent jurist [[Hans Kelsen]] argued that in the Ethiopian case, the League had "at least made certain efforts to fulfill its duty in the cases of illegal aggression undertaken by member states against other member states."<ref>{{cite journal |title=Between Sovereignty and Race: The Bombardment of Hospitals in the Italo-Ethiopian War and the Colonial Imprint of International Law |journal=State Crime Journal |date=2019 |volume=8 |pages=104–125 |doi=10.13169/statecrime.8.1.0104 |jstor=10.13169/statecrime.8.1.0104 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/statecrime.8.1.0104 |last1=Perugini |first1=Nicola |last2=Gordon |first2=Neve |s2cid=182759859 |hdl=20.500.11820/09cc2a58-72ab-49b1-bb5b-ae5fecd80b3c |hdl-access=free }}</ref>
===The Convention for the Definition of Aggression===
Line 39 ⟶ 41:
* Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.
The League prerogative under that convention to expel a League member found guilty of aggression was used by the League Assembly only once, against the Soviet government itself, on December 14, 1939, following the [[Winter War|Soviet invasion of Finland]].<ref>[http://www.histdoc.net/history/league1.html League of Nations Assembly resolution of December 14, 1939, expelling the Soviet government]</ref><ref>[http://www.histdoc.net/history/league2.html League of Nations Council resolution of December 14, 1939, expelling the Soviet government]</ref>
Primary documents:
Line 95 ⟶ 97:
===Further discussions on defining aggression===
The discussions on definition of aggression under the UN began in 1950, following the outbreak of the [[Korean War]]. As the western governments, headed by Washington, were in favor of defining the governments of North Korea and the People's Republic of China as aggressor states, the Soviet government proposed to formulate a new UN resolution defining aggression and based on the 1933 convention. As a result, on November 17, 1950, the General Assembly passed resolution 378,<ref>[http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f1ed5c.html UN General Assembly Resolution 378 (V) on the Duties of States in the Event of the Outbreak of Hostilities]</ref> which referred the issue to be defined by the [[International Law Commission]]. The commission deliberated over this issue in its 1951 session and due to large disagreements among its members, decided "that the only practical course was to aim at a general and abstract definition (of aggression)".<ref>[http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1951_v2.pdf ''Yearbook of the ILC 1951'', vol. 2], p. 132, {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912131458/http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1951_v2.pdf|date=2015-09-12}}.</ref> However, a tentative definition of aggression was adopted by the commission on June 4, 1951, which stated:
<blockquote>Aggression is the use of force by a State or Government against another State or Government, in any manner, whatever the weapons used and whether openly or otherwise, for any reason or for any purpose other than individual or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations.<ref>UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.13, in [http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1951_v1.pdf ''Yearbook of the ILC 1951'', vol. 1], p. 116, fn. 1, {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912103001/http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1951_v1.pdf|date=2015-09-12}}.</ref>
</blockquote>
Line 107 ⟶ 109:
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.{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}
[[File:20060715-1 32nd G8 summit.jpg|thumb|US President [[George W. Bush]] and Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]] were both accused of starting a war of aggression.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jon Heller |first1=Kevin |title=Creating a Special Tribunal for Aggression Against Ukraine Is a Bad Idea |url=http://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/07/creating-a-special-tribunal-for-aggression-against-ukraine-is-a-bad-idea/ |work=Opinio Juris |date=7 March 2022}}</ref>]]
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>
Line 117 ⟶ 119:
{{Main|Crime of aggression}}
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://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm#art.5 Part 2. Jurisdiction, admissibility and applicable law. Article 5.]</ref> The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC adopted such a definition in 2010 at the [[Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|Review Conference]] in [[Kampala]], [[Uganda]].<ref>[http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/review%20conference%20of%20the%20rome%20statute%20concludes%20in%20kampala Review Conference of the Rome Statute concludes in Kampala] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100618140234/http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/review%20conference%20of%20the%20rome%20statute%20concludes%20in%20kampala |date=2010-06-18 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/06/icc-nations-adopt-crime-of-aggression.php|title=ICC nations define crime of aggression|date=12 June 2010 |access-date= 26 December 2011}}</ref>
==See also==
Line 131 ⟶ 133:
*[[Nuremberg principles]]
*[[Preventive war]]
*[[Six-day war]]
*[[Voluntary war]]
*[[War crime]]
*[[War of liberation]]
Line 149 ⟶ 153:
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20110616100534/http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf Amendments] to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression
* [http://www.juragentium.org/topics/wlgo/cortona/en/pietropa.htm Stefano Pietropaoli, Defining evil. The war of aggression and international law]
* [http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/6756D8C1-98A1-47D3-BC13-EA8D8AA860F1/282450/03092010_IHLDialogs_Chautauqua_Speech1.pdf From Nuremberg to Kampala – Reflections on the Crime of Aggression, Address by Judge Dr. jur. h. c. Hans-Peter Kaul of the ICC at the 4th International Humanitarian Law Dialogs, 2010]{{Dead link|date=December 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* [https://www.un.org/law/books/HistoricalReview-Aggression.pdf Historical Review of Developments relating to Aggression, 2003] (UN publication)
{{War crimes}}{{International Criminal Law}}▼
▲{{International Criminal Law}}
{{Authority control}}
| |||