aggression essay

paragraphs

1. intro

2. what is aggression

3. early attempt to prohibit aggression

4. nuremberg and recognition

5. UN charter

6. attempts to define aggression

7. rome statute and kampala agreement

8. elements of crime of aggression

9. challenges in defining and prosecuting the crime

10. conclusion

intro

concerns the decision to wage an illegal war

Unlike other international crimes under the Rome Statute, it is a leadership crime, meaning it can only be committed by individuals in positions of political or military control who plan or direct a State’s use of force.

it is the least developed of the core crimes and has never been prosecuted by the ICC.

crime of aggression

An act of aggression is conduct by a State, while the crime of aggression concerns individual criminal responsibility, specifically of leaders who control or direct State policy.

At Nuremberg, the crime was referred to as “crimes against peace.”

Under modern international law, the crime of aggression is committed when a leader or policy-maker plans, prepares, initiates, or executes an act of aggression carried out by a State. It is therefore about who decides to go to war, not how the war is fought.

early attempts to prohibit

Before the Second World War, there was no clear consensus that aggression was a crime under international law.

War was largely seen as a lawful tool of State policy.

Some early attempts were made to restrict the use of force:

• The Kellogg–Briand Pact (1928) renounced war as an instrument of national policy, but lacked enforcement mechanisms.

• The General Pact for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes (1929) under the League of Nations sought to resolve disputes peacefully and included limited enforcement mechanisms.

Despite these efforts, there was still uncertainty about whether aggression was criminal under international law.

nuremberg

During the Second World War, discussions within the UN War Crimes Commission revealed disagreement over whether aggression was already a crime under international law. Nevertheless, the Nuremberg Charter resolved this uncertainty.

Article 6(a) of the Nuremberg Charter gave the International Military Tribunal jurisdiction over crimes against peace, defined as the planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression.

Similar provisions appeared in the Charter of the IMTFE which enabled domestic prosecutions in occupied territories.

The Nuremberg Tribunal stated that aggressive war was illegal, and that those who planned and waged such wars committed crimes.

This confirmed that the crime of aggression did exist under international law, and that individuals could be held criminally responsible.

UN charter

After Nuremberg, the prohibition of aggression became central to international law through the UN Charter.

• Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force by one State against another.

• Article 51 provides an exception for self-defence.

• Chapter VII allows the Security Council to authorise force as part of collective security.

This framework regulates the law on the use of force

. Aggression therefore concerns violations of the use of force rather than (the law governing conduct during war).

The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution (1950) reflected concerns about Security Council paralysis, allowing the General Assembly to act where the Security Council could not, an issue that continues to affect decisions on aggression.

attempts to define aggression

In 1947, the General Assembly directed the International Law Commission (ILC) to formulate principles recognised at Nuremberg and draft a code of crimes against peace and security.

In 1950, the ILC was specifically asked to draft a definition of aggression.

A provision on aggression appeared in the 1954 Draft Code, but it proved highly controversial.

Eventually, in 1974, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314, which defined aggression and stated that a war of aggression is a crime against international peace. However, the resolution was non-binding and did not create individual criminal responsibility.

In 1996, the ILC included aggression in its Draft Code of Crimes but again without a definition, highlighting the ongoing difficulty of agreement.

rome statute and kampala

The Rome Statute of the ICC (1998) included aggression as a core crime but postponed jurisdiction due to disagreement over its definition and the role of the Security Council.

Following lengthy negotiations, the Kampala Amendments (2010) adopted Article 8 bis, defining the crime of aggression as:

the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression by a person in a position to control or direct the political or military action of a State, where the act constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter.

ICC jurisdiction over aggression was activated in July 2018, though subject to strict limitations.

elements of crime of aggression

Under the ICC definition, the crime requires:

1. A perpetrator in a leadership position

2. Who participated

3. In an act of aggression by a State

4. Which constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter due to its character, gravity, and scale

The crime requires planning, meaning threats alone do not suffice.

The Kampala Amendments also include mental elements, requiring awareness of the factual circumstances establishing both the Charter violation and its manifest nature.

challenges defining and prosecuting the crime

Defining aggression is difficult because it involves assessing the legality of State conduct, often influenced by political considerations.

The requirement of a manifest violation creates a high threshold, excluding borderline cases such as humanitarian intervention or controversial claims of self-defence.

Limiting the crime to leaders also narrows accountability and distinguishes aggression from other Rome Statute crimes

The ICC has never prosecuted a crime of aggression. Its jurisdiction is limited to acts involving States that have accepted the Kampala Amendments, and the Security Council’s role introduces political decision-making into what should be a legal process.

Powerful States are effectively shielded, raising concerns about selectivity and undermining deterrence.

Ongoing reviews, including the 2025 review of the Kampala Amendments, reflect continued uncertainty and lack of consensus.

conclusion

The crime of aggression has evolved from early attempts to restrict war, through recognition at Nuremberg, to its codification under the ICC.

Despite this progress, it remains underdeveloped and politically constrained.

While aggression provides the context for other international crimes and addresses violations of jus ad bellum, its definition and prosecution remain limited in practice, making it the most challenging of the core international crimes.