|
Foreword
|
xix
|
|
Preface
|
xxi
|
|
The Crime of Aggression Amendments
|
xxiii
|
|
Abbreviations
|
xxxi
|
|
1. The crime of aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: an introduction
|
1
|
|
A crime of aggression at last
|
1
|
|
The early history of the crime of aggression
|
2
|
|
The lead-up to Rome
|
6
|
|
The Rome Conference
|
9
|
|
The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression
|
13
|
|
The Review Conference of the Rome Statute
|
24
|
|
The approach of this book
|
31
|
|
2. Criminalising aggression
|
34
|
|
Misplaced misgivings
|
34
|
|
A prohibition of at least certain forms of inter-State armed violence
|
34
|
|
Desirability versus possibility
|
39
|
|
Beyond an end to impunity: the significance of the crime
|
49
|
|
International politics and the crime of aggression
|
49
|
|
The crime of aggression and the jus ad bellum
|
54
|
|
Conflict over aggression?
|
56
|
|
A chilling effect
|
59
|
|
Conclusion
|
60
|
|
3. An act of aggression: by any other name
|
62
|
|
The distinction between acts and crimes
|
62
|
|
Resolution 3314: a poor precedent
|
62
|
|
New nomenclature: inter-State armed violence under the UN Charter
|
63
|
|
The 3314 Definition: a compromised text
|
70
|
|
Acts of aggression and the jus ad bellum
|
82
|
|
Security Council practice
|
83
|
|
General Assembly practice
|
87
|
|
Decisions of the International Court of Justice
|
89
|
|
Conclusion: the definition of an act of aggression for the purposes of the jus ad bellum
|
95
|
|
Article 8bis (2)
|
96
|
|
Picking and choosing
|
97
|
|
Open or closed
|
103
|
|
In and out
|
105
|
|
Non-State actors
|
106
|
|
Cyber operations
|
110
|
|
Understanding the Understandings
|
113
|
|
The status of the Understandings
|
113
|
|
Understanding an ‘act of aggression’
|
119
|
|
Conclusion: an act of aggression under Article 8bis (2)
|
122
|
|
4. The elevation of acts of aggression to the State act element of the crime of aggression
|
124
|
|
An act of aggression that by its character, gravity and scale constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations
|
124
|
|
Nullum crimen sine lege and the prohibition of analogy
|
130
|
|
The most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole
|
132
|
|
Inconsistency with customary international law
|
137
|
|
Making the ICC an arbiter of the grey areas in the jus ad bellum
|
155
|
|
Article 31: grounds for excluding criminal responsibility
|
163
|
|
Conclusion
|
164
|
|
5. The individual conduct elements of the crime
|
167
|
|
Effectively exercising control over or directing the political or military action of a State
|
168
|
|
The ‘leadership’ requirement
|
168
|
|
The relevance of Article 28
|
183
|
|
The perpetrator’s contribution
|
185
|
|
The mental elements
|
189
|
|
Article 32: mistake of fact or mistake of law
|
196
|
|
The relevance of Article 33
|
197
|
|
Modes of participation
|
198
|
|
Third State officials
|
199
|
|
Can you attempt to commit a crime of aggression?
|
200
|
|
Conclusion
|
202
|
|
6. The Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression
|
205
|
|
A regime consistent with international law
|
206
|
|
Does the UN Charter give the Security Council a prerogative to identify acts of aggression?
|
208
|
|
The Council’s pre-emptive right to identify acts of aggression
|
209
|
|
The Council’s right to identify acts of aggression is a primary one
|
213
|
|
Omitting a role for the Council would raise a conflict under Article 103
|
214
|
|
The Council’s prerogative does not extend to international criminal law
|
214
|
|
Other entities have the ability to identify acts of aggression
|
220
|
|
Article 103 is no barrier to independent ICC identification of acts of aggression
|
229
|
|
Policy arguments against a role for the Council in State referrals or proprio motu investigations
|
230
|
|
Conclusion
|
234
|
|
The jurisdictional regime of the ICC
|
234
|
|
Entry into force: the slow burn issue
|
237
|
|
The dilemma: Article 121(4) or Article 121(5)?
|
237
|
|
The second sentence of Article 121(5)
|
243
|
|
The negative interpretation and non-States Parties
|
247
|
|
The exclusions under Article 15bis
|
249
|
|
The Article 5(2) reference
|
251
|
|
The Article 12 reference
|
252
|
|
The rationale of the opt-out declaration
|
253
|
|
A comparison with Article 15bis (5)
|
256
|
|
The absence of an understanding
|
257
|
|
Over whom can the Court exercise jurisdiction?
|
258
|
|
The applicability of Article 12(3)
|
263
|
|
Future States Parties
|
264
|
|
The when and what of Article 15bis (4) declarations
|
265
|
|
Security Council determinations
|
268
|
|
What amounts to a Security Council determination?
|
268
|
|
Does a ‘negative determination’ have any effect?
|
270
|
|
The Pre-Trial Division filter
|
271
|
|
What is the relationship between Article 15bis and Article 15?
|
273
|
|
Article 16
|
274
|
|
Security Council referrals
|
276
|
|
Conclusion
|
279
|
|
7. 2017 and beyond
|
281
|
|
Activating the Court’s jurisdiction
|
281
|
|
The requirements
|
283
|
|
The prospects of an active jurisdiction
|
286
|
|
Prosecuting a crime of aggression before the ICC
|
289
|
|
Judicial elections and staffing the Court
|
289
|
|
Victims of crimes of aggression
|
292
|
|
Cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of crimes of aggression
|
301
|
|
Domestic prosecutions
|
311
|
|
Domestic prosecutions under the aggression amendments
|
311
|
|
Bases of domestic jurisdiction
|
315
|
|
Foreign State immunities
|
320
|
|
Other potential barriers to domestic prosecutions of crimes of aggression
|
324
|
|
Conclusion
|
326
|
|
Review of the amendments
|
327
|
|
Conclusion: a crime in name only?
|
332
|
|
References
|
336
|
|
Index
|
374
|