War of aggression: Difference between revisions

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. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "[[might makes right]]", underin thecontrast medieval and pre-historic beliefs of [[right of conquest]]. Sincewith the [[Korean War]]concept of the early 1950s, waging such a [[just war]] of aggression is a crime under the [[customary international law]]. Possibly the first trial for waging aggressivetheory|just war is that of the Sicilian king [[Conradin]] in 1268.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cryer (et al)|first=Robert|title=An introduction to international criminal law and procedure|year=2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge [UK]|isbn=978-0-521-13581-8|pages=312|edition=2nd}}</ref>

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}}

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>

The origin of the concept, the author Peter Maguire argues, emerged from the debate on [[Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles]] of 1919: "Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."<ref>{{cite book|author=Stephen C. Neff|title=War and the Law of Nations: A General History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=83vbR5XwQfwC&pg=PA289|year=2005|publisher=Cambridge UP|page=289|isbn=9781139445238}}</ref> Maguire argues:

{{quoteblockquote|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>}}

Two '''Conventions for the Definition of Aggression''' were signed in [[London]] on 3 and 4 July 1933. The first was signed by [[Czechoslovakia]], [[Kingdom of Romania|Romania]], the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]], [[Turkey]] and [[Kingdom of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], and came into effect on 17 February 1934, when it was ratified by all of them but Turkey. The second was signed by [[Kingdom of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]] (ratified 20 October 1933), [[Estonia]] (4 December), [[Latvia]] (4 December), [[Persia]] (16 November), [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]] (16 October), Romania (16 October), the Soviet Union (16 October) and Turkey, which ratified both treaties on 23 March 1934. [[Finland]] acceded to the second convention on 31 January 1934. The second convention was the first to be registered with the [[League of Nations Treaty Series]] on 29 March 1934, while the first was registered on 26 April. As [[Lithuania]] refused to sign any treaty including Poland,<ref>Lithuanian authorities regarded Polish rule over the [[Vilnius Region]] as a military occupation of its constitutional capital.</ref> sheit signed the definition of aggression in a separate pact with the Soviet Union on 5 July 1933, also in London, and exchanged ratifications on 14 December. It was registered in the Treaty Series on 16 April 1934.

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>

{{quoteblockquote|{{ordered list|list_style_type=lower-roman

See: ''[[Nuremberg Trials]]:'' "The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, [[Debellatio#Nazi_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."

{{quoteblockquote|The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

Associate Supreme Court Justice [[William O. Douglas]] charged that the [[Allies of World War II|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."<ref>''Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal'', H. K. Thompson, Jr. and Henry Strutz, (Torrance,1983). ''Dönitz at Calif.Nuremberg: 1983)A Reappraisal''. Torrance, California.</ref>

The relevant provisions of the [[Charter of the United Nations]] mentioned in the [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|RSICC]] article 5.2 were framed to include the Nuremberg Principles. The specific principle is ''[[Nuremberg Principles#Principle VI|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 ChartersCharter's provisions based on the Nuremberg Principle VI.a are:

{{quoteblockquote|

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>

On December 14, 1974, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] adopted [[Resolution 3314]], which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding as such under international law, though it may reflect [[customary international law]].{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}

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.{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}

While 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 (Liberian politician)|Charles Taylor]] of [[Liberia]]. However, both were charged with [[war crimescrime]]s, i.e., violations of the [[Law of war|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 [[Charter of the United Nations|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>

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|2010 Kampalaof 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|accessdatedate=12 June 2010 |access-date= 26 December 2011}}</ref>

* J. Hogan-Doran and B. van Ginkel, "Aggression as a Crime under International Law and the Prosecution of Individuals by the Proposed International Criminal Court" Netherlands International Law Review, Volume 43, Issue 3, December 1996, pp. 321-351&nbsp;321–351, T.M.C. Asser Press 1996.

* [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 }}

[[Category:CrimeAggression ofin aggressioninternational law]]