英语论文网

ocking and illegal.”

ICC

Offences over which the ICC has jurisdiction are the most serious crimes of international concern e.g. genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression. Before the ICC has jurisdictiion one of the following must occur; the ICC Court Prosecutor must have referred a matter to the prosecutor; or the Prosecutor undertakes an investigation under his own initiative proprio motu, Art 13 of Statute of ICC.

Article 15 bis

Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression:

1. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, subject to the provisions of this article.

2. Where the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an

investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, he or she shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. The Prosecutor shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the situation before the Court, including any relevant information and documents.

3) Where the Security Council has made such a determination, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect to the crime of aggression

Conclusion:

Aggression is regarded as a crime against the peace for, which there is responsibility under international law. However, while the ICC has competence to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of aggression, a definition of what constitutes aggression is vague.

Only when a clear definition has been established will ICC’s jurisdictional competence be established.

The scope of Article 2(4) only prohibits the use of force between states i.e. inter-state but not within a state, i.e. intra-state.

While the development of crime of aggression is to be lauded, nevertheless a clear definition of aggression in required in international law. For decades the international legal community has struggled with formulating a definition of aggression.

In Uganda 2010 delegates met and debated a definition of aggression. Under the auspices of ICC, the international working group in their wisdom suggested that aggression be defined with a circular reference to the UN Charter – at first glance no definition at all:

“… a crime committed by a political or military leader which, by its character, gravity and scale constituted a manifest violation of the Charter.” [U] UU

The brilliance of this definition is in the detail. It is often an individual that makes the decision to commit an act of an aggression (not always – they often have that decision ratified by some puppet deliberative assembly)

By nestling the definition at the feet of the leader(s), the international community effectively plays a waiting game. Sooner or later, leaders culpable of aggression leave office and it is the nature of their leadership that their departure is often violent and followed by exile.

That is where this definition excels: once convicted, the leader is either handed over or can never leave his or her country without facing arrest. In any event, the mere fact of a trial of a former leader will give incumbent leaders pause for thought when, in their turn, they consider aggression and it