Crime of aggression

A crime of aggression or crime against peace is the planning,

initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression
using state military force. The definition and scope of the crime is
controversial. The Rome Statute contains an exhaustive list of acts
of aggression that can give rise to individual criminal responsibility,
which include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use
of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports. Aggression
is generally a leadership crime that can be committed only by those
with the power to shape a state's policy of aggression, rather than The crime of aggression was
those who carry it out. conceived by Soviet jurist Aron
Trainin in the wake of the German
The philosophical basis for the wrongness of aggression is found in
invasion of the Soviet Union during
just war theory, in which waging a war without a just cause for
World War II. Pictured: Stalingrad in
self-defense is unjust. In the wake of the German invasion of the
ruins, December 1942
Soviet Union during World War II, Soviet jurist Aron Trainin made
the first successful proposal to criminalize aggression. The Charter
of the International Military Tribunal provided criminal liability for waging aggressive war, which was the
main focus of the Nuremberg trial. Other participants in World War II were tried for aggression in Finland,
Poland, China, the subsequent Nuremberg trials, and the Tokyo trial. No one has been prosecuted for
aggression either before or since the 1940s.

It is generally accepted that the crime of aggression exists in international customary law. The definitions
and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this crime by the International Criminal Court were
adopted in 2010 at the Kampala Review Conference by the states parties to the court. Aggression is
criminalized according to the statute law of some countries, and can be prosecuted under universal
jurisdiction.

Aggression is one of the core crimes in international criminal law, alongside genocide, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes. In 1946, the International Military Tribunal ruled that aggression was "the
supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".[1] The
standard view is that aggression is a crime against the state that is attacked, but it can also be considered a
crime against individuals who are killed or harmed as a result of war.

Background

Just war theory

Warfare has been part of human experience since the beginning of human history.[2] The criminalization of
aggression is of recent origin, dating to after World War II, but the idea of aggression as a grave moral
transgression and violation of the international order dates back much farther.[3][4] Just war theory, over the
centuries, held that a war fought for territorial aggrandizement was unjust, and that just wars are fought
only for self-defense, or in defense of allies, against such aggression.[5] The philosophical basis for the
criminalization of aggression derives from eighteenth-century theorist Emer de Vattel, although Vattel did
not envision formal trials for aggression, simply the execution of wrongdoers.[6] Early modern just war
theorists conceived aggression as the first wrong committed against another country, rather than the first
military strike.[7] Hugo Grotius, often considered the founder of international law, saw the principle wrong
in aggression in the violation of individual rights.[8] In 1815, Napoleon was outlawed "as an Enemy and
Disturber of the tranquillity of the World" in what was considered an "Exception to general rules of the
Law of Nations".[9]

World War I and interwar

After World War I, the prosecution of Kaiser Wilhelm II for

aggression was proposed by the United Kingdom and France.[10]
In a speech on 11 November 1918, British Prime Minister David
Lloyd George cited the loss of "the lives of millions of the best
young men in Europe" and "the outrage upon international law
which is involved in invading the territory of an independent
country without its consent" as a crime for which someone should
be held responsible.[11] The proposed prosecution met with
disapproval from the judiciary[11] and was rejected by the United The loss of life and harms of war are
States.[10] cited as a reason for the illegality of
aggression. Pictured: aerial view of
Instead, the League of Nations had the mandate of maintaining the ruins of Vaux, France, 1918.
international peace.[12] Interwar treaties criminalizing aggression
were proposed but not ratified,[9] and there was no progress
towards the criminalization of aggression.[13] Aggressive war became progressively delegitimized but was
not considered illegal under international customary law.[14] Although the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact did
not contain any suggestion that war was criminal,[15] it was cited as a precedent for the prosecution of
German and Japanese leaders for waging aggressive wars after World War II.[16]

World War II

Invasions during World War II led to new thinking on aggression.[17] Soviet criminologist Aron
Naumovich Trainin developed the ideas that were used to criminalize aggressive war, although he did not
attract international attention until 1943. Others making similar proposals included Hersch Lauterpacht,
Marcel de Baer, and Bohuslav Ečer.[18] Trainin argued that although material and political responsibility
rested with the state, criminal responsibility for aggressive war was vested in the individuals exercising
authority. He blamed Adolf Hitler, his cabinet, government officials, the Nazi Party and German
industrialists for acts of aggression against the Soviet Union, which he described as "the most heinous
crime".[19] The governments-in-exile represented in the London International Assembly lobbied for a
formal international tribunal with jurisdiction over acts of aggression.[20] In 1944, Trainin proposed that the
Nazi leaders could be dealt with either with a tribunal or by "the political verdict of the victorious
democratic States".[21] At the time, the Soviet Union still perceived itself as vulnerable to international
aggression, which motivated its interest in criminalizing aggression.[22]

Although there was not much in the way of international criminal law to work from, the United States
Department of War put together the legal framework for the Nuremberg trials in ten months.[23] Some
prominent United States policymakers thought that execution without trial compromised the principles of
the Allies and that formal trials before an international court would lend legitimacy.[24] At the London
Conference of 1945, the victorious Allies decided to criminalize aggression and try their vanquished
enemies[12] although at the conference doubts, were raised that wars of aggression were illegal under
customary law.[9] Both the Soviet Union, which invaded the Baltic States and Poland according to the
secret protocols of the German–Soviet pact, and Western countries, which had planned an invasion of
Norway, were aware that they could also be accused of acts of aggression and so they limited the definition
of crimes against peace to the actions of their defeated enemies during World War II.[25][26]

Case law
Almost all the trials for crimes against peace took place between November 1945 and November 1948,[27]
though in some cases such as Romania they extended into 1949;[28] no one has been prosecuted for
aggression before or since.[29] The courts faced the challenge, first of proving the criminality of acts of
aggression, and secondly in tying such acts to individuals.[30]

War-responsibility trials in Finland

In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Finland, leading to a peace treaty on unfavorable terms in 1940. In
1941, Finland attacked the Soviet Union, retaking the ceded territory and occupying parts of the Soviet
Union that had never been part of Finland.[31] In 1944, the war turned against Finland, which signed an
armistice on even less favorable terms.[32] The Allied Control Commission in Finland insisted on holding
trials for aggression during the second war, as the armistice had required Finnish cooperation in trying those
accused of war crimes.[33] The law establishing the tribunal established criminal responsibility for those
who "in a significant manner contributed in Finland's engagement in the war...or prevented peace" between
1941 and 1944.[34] Eight men were tried; wartime president Risto Ryti, six members of the cabinet, and the
Finnish ambassador to Germany, but not any generals.[35] Unlike other specifications of the crimes against
peace, the Finnish trials charged those who joined the government after 1941 and rejected peace offers
from the Soviet Union.[36] Initially seven were convicted and the ambassador was acquitted; the judgement
was revised to convict all the defendants with harsher penalties, up to ten years imprisonment with hard
labor.[37] The convicts were treated leniently in prison and all were released by 1949.[38]

International Military Tribunal

The Nuremberg Charter defined crimes against peace as[39]

planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of

aggression, or a war in violation of international
treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a
common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of
any of the foregoing.
Chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson
(on the pulpit)
The International Military Tribunal agreed with the prosecution that
aggression was the gravest charge against the accused, stating in its
judgement that because war in general is evil, "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."[1][40] These
words, originally written in a letter by British judge Robert Wright,[1] have been widely quoted. The
judgement found that there was a premeditated conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, whose goals
were "the disruption of the European order as it had existed since the Treaty of Versailles" and "the creation
of a Greater Germany beyond the frontiers of 1914".[40]
The planning of aggression was traced to Hitler's 1925 book Mein Kampf and specific secret meetings held
on 5 November 1937, 23 May 1939, 22 August 1939, and 23 November 1939.[41] The court considered
the planning of acts of aggression against Austria and Czechoslovakia,[42] as well as wars of aggressions
against Poland,[43] Denmark and Norway,[44] Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg,[45] Yugoslavia,
Greece,[46] and the Soviet Union,[47] as well as the declaration of war on the United States and prior
encouragement of Japanese aggression against the United States.[48] Although the court did not rule on acts
of aggression short of war, it does not preclude the criminality of aggression for less large-scale actions than
World War II.[49]

All 22 defendants were charged with crimes against peace, and 12 were convicted: Hermann Göring,
Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Rosenberg, Wilhelm Frick, Walther Funk,
Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Alfred Jodl, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Konstantin von Neurath.[41] The
Nuremberg verdict was groundbreaking, establishing international criminal law and rejecting that act of
state doctrine granted immunity for such serious crimes. The defendants were prosecuted even for acts that
were legal under domestic law.[50] Opinion on the Nuremberg trials was divided. While some heralded it as
a breakthrough in international law, crimes against peace specifically were subject to criticism as ex post
facto law.[9][51]

Nuremberg Military Tribunals

The Nuremberg Military Tribunals were based on Law No. 10,

which defined aggression as follows:[52]

Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of

aggression in violation of international laws and
treaties, including but not limited to planning,
preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression,
or a war of violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances, or participation in a Theodor von Hornbostel testifies for
common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of the prosecution during the Ministries
any of the foregoing. trial, giving evidence for aggression

The main Nuremberg trial only considered the conspiracy to commit crimes against peace against Austria
and Czechoslovakia, ruling that these relatively bloodless invasions were not wars of aggression. The
slightly different wording of the offense in Law No. 10 allowed the invasions of these countries to be
counted as substantive crimes against peace, and ultimately two defendants were convicted for their role in
these invasions.[53] Chief prosecutor Telford Taylor was skeptical about prosecuting aggression, but
ultimately charged defendants in four of the subsequent Nuremberg trials: the IG Farben trial, Krupp trial,
High Command trial, and Ministries trial.[52] Of 66 defendants charged with aggression, only three were
convicted (Hans Lammers, Wilhelm Keppler, and Paul Koerner), all of them during the Ministries trial.[54]
Nevertheless, the trials helped clarify the scope of aggression as a criminal offense, defining its four
necessary elements as "a state act of aggression; sufficient authority to satisfy the leadership requirement;
participation in the planning, preparing, initiating or waging of the aggressive act; and mens rea".[55]

International Military Tribunal for the Far East

The Tokyo Charter defined crimes against peace as[39]

 the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a declared or undeclared war of aggression,
or a war in violation of international law, treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in
a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.

The charge of aggression was central to the trial; 36 out of 55 counts were for crimes against peace.[56] The
judgement in the Tokyo Trial was three times longer than the Nuremberg judgement, making it a valuable
source of case law on aggression.[57] The majority of the judges followed the Nuremberg interpretation of
crimes against peace, but two judges—Radhabinod Pal from India and Bert Röling of the Netherlands—
dissented against the prosecution of crimes against peace.[58] The prosecution used conspiracy to file more
charges as each member of a conspiracy was held responsible for all others acting in the same
conspiracy.[59] All of the conspiracy charges related to crimes against peace alleged that the conspiracy
sought to "secure military, naval, political and economic domination of East Asia and of the Pacific and
Indian Oceans, and of all countries and islands therein and bordering thereon" by "wag[ing] declared or
undeclared war or wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law, treaties, agreements
and assurances, against any country or countries which might oppose that purpose." [60] The conspiracy
charges were partly successful as the judges accepted that there was a joint conspiracy to wage aggressive
war from 1928 to 1945.[61]

The judgement summarizes the rise of Japanese militarism in the 1930s[62] leading up to the Conference of
11 August 1936 in which an expansionist policy was decided.[63] In 1937, Japan invaded China and in
1938–1939 it prepared with war with the Soviet Union.[64]

Romania

The 1947 treaty of peace with Romania obliged the country to apprehend and bring to trial people accused
of "war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity".[65] Consequently, on 18 August 1947, Romania
issued its "Law for the Prosecution and Punishment of Those Guilty of War Crimes or Crimes against
Peace or Humanity".[66] At least 8 members of the wartime government of Ion Antonescu were sentenced
in 1949 for crimes against peace, although one of them was rehabilitated by the Romanian Supreme Court
on 26 October 1998. Another Romanian sentenced for crimes against peace - Gheron Netta, Ion
Antonescu's last finance minister (1 April to 23 August, 1944) - was rehabilitated by the Supreme Court on
17 January 2000.[67][68]

Other trials

Arthur Greiser, a Nazi leader in Danzig and later Gauleiter in the Warthegau region annexed from Poland,
was tried and convicted by a Polish court in 1946 for aggression among other charges.[69] Historian
Catherine Epstein states that the evidence that Greiser had participated in a conspiracy to wage aggressive
war is weak or nonexistent.[70] According to Mark A. Drumbl, he would probably not be convicted
according to the Rome Statute definition of aggression.[71]
In 1946, former Japanese general Takashi Sakai was tried by a Chinese court for aggression, convicted, and
executed.[72] Sakai appears to have been responsible for carrying out policies designed by others, which
would put him outside the Rome Statute definition of aggression. According to jurist Roger S. Clark, he
probably would not have been convicted for crimes against peace if tried at the Tokyo trial.[73]

Development in the United Nations

On 11 December 1946, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the criminality
of "waging aggressive war" and stating that it was not just the aggression of the Axis powers that was a
crime, but aggression in general.[74] Crimes against peace, devised by the Allies as a temporary solution,
soon exhausted their usefulness and were abandoned by 1950. In the early 1950s, attempts to codify the
crime of aggression in a "Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind" stalled.[51] After
the 1940s, other crimes against international law, especially genocide and crimes against humanity, took
priority over aggression.[7]

Maintenance of international peace and stability is a major function of the international order, and the
Charter of the United Nations prohibits acts of aggression against other states. The prohibition of
aggression is considered a peremptory norm in customary law, such that it is binding on states that are not
members of the United Nations.[75] The most important provision in the UN Charter is Article 2(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." [76] "Force" refers to armed or military force, defined broadly: it can refer to conventional
armies or irregular forces.[77] Although not explicitly stated in the UN Charter, the conventional view is that
only state actors can commit aggression.[78] Although self-defense is an exception to the prohibition of
force, claims of preventative and pre-emptive self-defense is largely rejected.[79]

On 14 December 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 elaborated on the prohibition
of the use of force in the UN Charter. Although not legally binding, it influenced the Rome Statute's
definition of aggression.[80] Resolution 3314 generally defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a
State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition."[81] It includes an
incomplete list of acts of aggression and confirms that aggression are committed by one state against
another, excluding non-state actors.[82] The resolution also refers to "crime of aggression" and makes it
clear that there is individual criminal liability for aggression.[81]

Customary law
It is generally agreed by scholars of international criminal law that the crime of aggression is part of
international customary law, but there is no agreement on the exact scope of aggression that is covered in
customary law. This threshold is probably high, in order to distinguish criminal aggression from other acts
of aggression.[83] According to Antonio Cassese, the customary criminalization of aggression covers
"planning, or organizing, or preparing, or participating in the first use of armed force by a State against the
territorial integrity and political independence of another State in contravention of the UN Charter, provided
the acts of aggression concerned have large-scale and serious consequences".[84] Gerhard Werle and
Florian Jessberger argue that wars of aggression are criminalized under customary law, but not acts of
aggression falling short of war.[85] Others argue for a broader conception, including other acts of
aggression that have broad-ranging and severe consequences.[86]
Aggression requires both a mens rea and actus reus.[87] In terms of mens rea, Israeli jurist Yoram Dinstein
argues that aggression can only be committed by a few high state officials who decide to wage aggressive
war, and any subordinates who know in advance that their plans will be used to wage an aggressive war.
Other jurists require a special intent, in the form of seeking to "achieve territorial gains, or to obtain
economic advantages, or to interfere with the internal affairs" of the state that is aggressed.[88]

National law
After 1948, many states passed statute law criminalizing aggression,[89] with different variations in
prohibited conduct.[90] Dinstein has argued that national prosecutions for aggression are undesirable as "the
nature of crimes against peace is such that no domestic proceedings can conceivably dispel doubts
regarding the impartiality of the judges."[90] Aggression can be tried under universal jurisdiction.[91]

Rome Statute
In 1998, at the Rome Conference that adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ("the
Statute"), the crime was included as one of the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court (Article 5.1) and
over which any State that becomes party to the Statute accepts the Court's jurisdiction (Article 12.1).
However, participants to the Rome Conference could not agree on the definition of the crime nor on further
conditions for the Court's exercise of jurisdiction; the Statute did not allow the Court to exercise such
jurisdiction until these outstanding issues were solved (Article 5.2). At the 2010 Review Conference ("the
Conference"), States Parties agreed by consensus to adopt resolution RC/Res.6 accepting the amendments
to the Statute adding the definition of the crime and the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over this
crime.[92] Aggression is one of the core crimes in international criminal law, alongside genocide, crimes
against humanity, and war crimes.[93]

Rome Statute definition of aggression

Under the Rome Statute, as amended in the 2010 Kampala Review Conference, the crime of aggression
"means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise
control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its
character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations".[94][95]
The criminal prosecution of aggression is limited to the most serious acts of state aggression;[96] non-state
aggression, an even more disputed concept, is excluded.[97] The Rome Statute also restricts the crime of
aggression to leaders of a state who have the power to determine a state's policy, excluding even high-
ranking officials or generals who carry out a war of aggression.[96][98]

Thus, the crime of aggression is distinguished from the act of aggression, defined in the Rome Statute by
the amendments of the 2010 Kampala Review Conference as follows:[94][95]

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, "act of aggression" means the use of armed force by a State
against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts,
regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly
resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of
another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from
 such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of
another State or part thereof;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another
State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another
State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of
another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or
marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of
another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the
conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in
such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the
disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act
of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or
mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such
gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement
therein.
— Kampala Review Conference, 11 June 2010[94]

The list of prohibited acts is exhaustive.[99]

Jurisdiction

The International Criminal Court may only prosecute an act of aggression if the aggressing state has
accepted its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, or following a referral from the Security Council.[100]
Critics argue that the ICC should not prosecute aggression; a prominent criticism is that justified war is a
political determination, and the involvement of a court in such a matter could compromise its legitimacy.[97]
A prosecution by the ICC is unlikely because of the narrow scope of the crime and limited jurisdiction.[101]

The ICC's jurisdiction over aggression was activated on 17 July 2018 after a decision by two-thirds of
states parties.[96] As of 17 March 2022, 43 State Parties have ratified or acceded to the amendments on the
crime of aggression to the Rome Statute.[102]

State- versus human-rights-centric approaches to aggression

Wars of aggression entail "legally unjustified killing that is otherwise anomalously non-criminal at both the
international and national levels: the killing of combatants and proportionate collateral civilians through a
manifestly illegal use of international force".[103] The standard view is that aggression is a crime against the
state that is attacked.[8][104] The Rome Statute definition of aggression does not technically require harm to
individuals,[105] but the relatively bloodless invasion of the Czech lands in 1939 was not prosecuted at
Nuremberg.[106] Some severe violations of state sovereignty (such as foreign electoral interference aiming
at regime change) are not criminalized as aggression, while lesser infringements involving military force
can be criminalized.[107] It is debatable whether prohibiting aggression protects state sovereignty or
circumscribes it.[103] Others see aggression as a crime primarily against individuals who are killed or
harmed as a result of war.[8][104]
Philosopher Larry May maintains that serious aggressions, entailing loss of life, can be subsumed under the
category of crimes against humanity. Conversely, a war cannot be justified by a minor violation of territorial
integrity, and a violation of territorial integrity that does not involve serious human rights violations cannot
be considered a criminal act of aggression. This conception of aggression could also allow for humanitarian
intervention.[108]

The traditional view is that only decision-makers can be held criminally responsible for aggression, rather
than lower-level military personnel and ordinary soldiers.[109] In recent times, however, there has been
consideration as to whether soldiers who knowingly participate in a war of aggression incur moral or
should incur legal liability.[110] Soldiers have a right and a responsibility to refuse to commit war crimes,
but in general the right to refuse to fight an illegal war is not recognized.[111] International law scholar Tom
Dannenbaum argues that soldiers should have a right not to fight in illegal wars, and those who refuse to do
so should be recognized as refugees.[112]

One controversial issue is whether waging aggressive war inherently violates the right to life guaranteed in
international human rights law. In 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that "States
parties engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate
ipso facto article 6 [the right to life] of the" International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[113]

References
1. Sellars 2013, p. 165.
2. Sayapin 2014, p. xv.
3. May 2016, p. 273.
4. Sayapin 2014, p. xvi.
5. May 2016, p. 274.
6. May 2016, pp. 276–277.
7. May 2016, p. 278.
8. May 2016, p. 279.
9. Sayapin 2014, p. xvii.
10. Sellars 2013, p. ix.
11. Sellars 2013, p. 1.
12. Sellars 2013, p. x.
13. Sellars 2013, p. 45.
14. Sellars 2013, pp. 22–23.
15. Sellars 2013, p. 28.
16. Sellars 2013, p. 23.
17. Sellars 2013, p. 40.
18. Sellars 2013, pp. 49–50.
19. Sellars 2013, pp. 51–52.
20. Sellars 2013, p. 53.
21. Sellars 2013, p. 57.
22. Sellars 2013, pp. 57–58.
23. Sellars 2013, p. 67.
24. Sellars 2013, pp. 67–68.
25. Sellars 2013, pp. x, 150.
26. Sayapin 2014, p. 38.
27. Sellars 2013, p. xii.
28. Henry F. Carey, Lexington Books, 2004, Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics, and
Society, p. 75 (https://books.google.com/books?id=QjqxzR0xTvoC&pg=PA75)
29. Kemp 2010, pp. 209, 211.
30. Sayapin 2014, p. 149.
31. Tallgren 2013, p. 432.
32. Tallgren 2013, p. 433.
33. Tallgren 2013, pp. 435–436.
34. Tallgren 2013, pp. 436–437.
35. Tallgren 2013, p. 438.
36. Tallgren 2013, p. 439.
37. Tallgren 2013, p. 440.
38. Tallgren 2013, p. 441.
39. Clark 2013, p. 392.
40. Sayapin 2014, p. 150.
41. Sayapin 2014, pp. 150–151.
42. Sayapin 2014, pp. 151–152.
43. Sayapin 2014, pp. 152–154.
44. Sayapin 2014, pp. 154–155.
45. Sayapin 2014, pp. 155–156.
46. Sayapin 2014, pp. 156–157.
47. Sayapin 2014, pp. 157–159.
48. Sayapin 2014, p. 159.
49. Sayapin 2014, p. 160.
50. Sayapin 2014, p. 148.
51. Sellars 2013, p. xi.
52. Heller 2011, p. 179.
53. Heller 2011, pp. 180–181.
54. Heller 2011, pp. 179, 181, 186, 201.
55. Heller 2011, pp. 201–202.
56. Cohen & Totani 2020, pp. 69, 71.
57. Sayapin 2014, p. 161.
58. Cohen & Totani 2020, p. 70.
59. Cohen & Totani 2020, pp. 72–73.
60. Cohen & Totani 2020, p. 75.
61. Cohen & Totani 2020, p. 74.
62. Sayapin 2014, pp. 163–165.
63. Sayapin 2014, p. 166.
64. Sayapin 2014, p. 167.
65. United States, Department of State, 1968, Treaties and Other International Agreements of
the United States of America, 1776-1949: Multilateral, 1946-1949, p. 405 (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=0M8WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA405)
66. Dennis Deletant, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1999, Communist Terror in Romania:
Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965, p. 131 (https://books.google.com/books?id
=hRn56_qAwiYC&pg=PA131)
67. Henry F. Carey, Lexington Books, 2004, Romania Since 1989: Politics, Economics, and
Society, p. 75 (https://books.google.com/books?id=QjqxzR0xTvoC&pg=PA75)
68. David Singer, American Jewish Committee, 2001, American Jewish Year Book 2001,
Volume 101, p. 430 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22netta+gheron%2C+who+had+s
erved%22&biw=1536&bih=708&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AB5stBhWmqd6iFmRcG_tXWmtavzfR2XL
Hg%3A1689262170903&ei=WhiwZOblNsnSsAfU1ZD4Cw&ved=0ahUKEwjm-oP9_4uAAx
VJKewKHdQqBL8Q4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22netta+gheron%2C+who+had+served%22&
gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIh4ibmV0dGEgZ2hlcm9uLCB3aG8gaGFkIHNlcnZlZCJI04w
BUMMHWIiKAXABeACQAQCYAesBoAHdL6oBBjAuMzEuOLgBA8gBAPgBAYgGAQ&scli
ent=gws-wiz-books)
69. Drumbl 2013, p. 411.
70. Drumbl 2013, p. 423.
71. Drumbl 2013, p. 427.
72. Clark 2013, pp. 387, 390.
73. Clark 2013, pp. 396–397.
74. Kemp 2010, p. 205.
75. Sayapin 2014, p. 76.
76. Sayapin 2014, p. 77.
77. Sayapin 2014, pp. 80–81.
78. Sayapin 2014, pp. 82–83.
79. Sayapin 2014, pp. 114–116.
80. Sayapin 2014, p. 104.
81. Sayapin 2014, p. 105.
82. Sayapin 2014, pp. 105–106.
83. Kemp 2010, pp. 202, 207.
84. Kemp 2010, pp. 207–208.
85. Kemp 2010, pp. 209–210.
86. Kemp 2010, p. 211.
87. Kemp 2010, p. 210.
88. Kemp 2010, p. 212.
89. Sayapin 2014, p. xviii.
90. Kemp 2010, p. 194.
91. Scharf, Michael P. (2012). "Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression" (https://heino
nline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hilj53&div=12&id=&page=). Harvard
International Law Journal. 53: 357.
92. "Resolution RC/Res.6 !" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120320072358/http://www.icc-cpi.in
t/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (htt
p://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf) (PDF) on 20 March
2012. Retrieved 14 May 2012.
93. Soler 2019, p. 89.
94. "Rome statute of the International Criminal Court – Rome, 17 July 1998 – Amendments to
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Kampala, 11 June 2010 – Adoption of
Amendments on the Crime of Aggression" (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2010/06/2010
0611%2005-56%20PM/CN.651.2010.pdf) (PDF). United Nations. 30 November 2010.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220424002310/https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2
010/06/20100611%2005-56%20PM/CN.651.2010.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 24 April
2022. Retrieved 9 August 2022.
 95. Clark 2013, p. 393.
96. Soler 2019, p. 104.
97. May 2016, p. 284.
98. Clark 2013, pp. 397–398.
99. Soler 2019, pp. 104–105.
100. "Crime of Aggression Activated at the ICC: Does it Matter?" (https://www.justsecurity.org/498
59/crime-aggression-activated-icc-matter/). Just Security. 19 December 2017. Retrieved
2 March 2022.
101. Soler 2019, p. 105.
102. "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" (https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.
aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10-b&chapter=18&clang=_en). United Nations Treaty
Collection. 17 March 2022. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
103. Dannenbaum 2018, p. 861.
104. Dannenbaum 2018, p. 859.
105. Dannenbaum 2018, p. 860.
106. Dannenbaum 2018, p. 862.
107. Dannenbaum 2018, pp. 861–862.
108. May 2016, pp. 279–280.
109. Dannenbaum 2018, p. 864.
110. May 2016, p. 283.
111. Dannenbaum 2018, pp. 865, 867.
112. Dannenbaum 2018, pp. 868, 870.
113. Casey-Maslen, Stuart (2021). "Jus ad Bellum, Aggression, and the Right to Life". The Right
to Life under International Law: An Interpretative Manual. Cambridge University Press.
pp. 122–140. ISBN 978-1-108-49478-6.

Sources
Clark, Roger S. (2013). "The Crime of Aggression: From the Trial of Takashi Sakai, August 1946,
to the Kampala Review Conference on the ICC in 2010" (https://oxford.universitypressschol
arship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671144.001.0001/acprof-9780199671144-cha
pter-19). The Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trials. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-
19-967114-4.
Cohen, David; Totani, Yuma (2020). The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal: Law, History, and
Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-82068-4.
Dannenbaum, Tom (2018). "The Criminalization of Aggression and Soldiers' Rights" (https://doi.
org/10.1093%2Fejil%2Fchy054). European Journal of International Law. 29 (3): 859–886.
doi:10.1093/ejil/chy054 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fejil%2Fchy054).
Drumbl, Mark A. (2013). " 'Germans are the Lords and Poles are the Servants': The Trial of
Arthur Greiser in Poland, 1946" (https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780199671144.001.0001/acprof-9780199671144-chapter-20). The Hidden
Histories of War Crimes Trials. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967114-4.
Heller, Kevin Jon (2011). The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International
Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-955431-7.
Kemp, Gerhard (2010). Individual Criminal Liability for the International Crime of Aggression.
Intersentia. ISBN 978-94-000-0013-1.
May, Larry (2016). "Just War Theory and the Crime of Aggression". In Kreß, Claus; Barriga,
Stefan (eds.). The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
pp. 273–286. ISBN 978-1-107-01526-5.
Sayapin, Sergey (2014). The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law: Historical
Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State. T.M.C. Asser Press. ISBN 978-90-
6704-927-6.
Sellars, Kirsten (2013). 'Crimes Against Peace' and International Law. Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 978-1-107-02884-5.
Soler, Christopher (2019). The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law.
T.M.C. Asser Press. ISBN 978-94-6265-335-1.
Tallgren, Immi (2013). "The Finnish War-Responsibility Trial in 1945–6: The Limits of Ad Hoc
Criminal Justice?" (https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9
780199671144.001.0001/acprof-9780199671144-chapter-21). The Hidden Histories of War
Crimes Trials. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967114-4.

Further reading
Bock, Stefanie; Conze, Eckart (2021). Rethinking the Crime of Aggression: International and
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. T.M.C. Asser Press. ISBN 978-94-6265-467-9.
Dannenbaum, Tom (2018). The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-16918-0.
Grzebyk, Patrycja (2013). Criminal Responsibility for the Crime of Aggression. Routledge.
ISBN 978-1-136-00120-8.
Jia, Bing Bing (2015). "The Crime of Aggression as Custom and the Mechanisms for
Determining Acts of Aggression". American Journal of International Law. 109 (3): 569–582.
doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.3.0569 (https://doi.org/10.5305%2Famerjintelaw.109.3.0569).
S2CID 147754466 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:147754466).
McDougall, Carrie (2021). The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-86476-3.
Politi, Mauro (2017). The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression.
Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-21829-0.

External links
Resolution RC/Res.6 (https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf) –
Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of
aggression
Review Conference (https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/reviewconference/Pages/review%
20conference.aspx) – Official Site of the Assembly of States Parties
Crime of Aggression (https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/reviewconference/Pages/crime%2
0of%20aggression.aspx) – Official Site of the Assembly of States Parties
UN Treaty Collection (UTC) – Status of Acceptance, Ratification
10 .a Amendment to article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (htt
p://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10-a&chapte
r=18&lang=en)
10 .b Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court. (http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=
XVIII-10-b&chapter=18&lang=en)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_of_aggression&oldid=1179991724"