CYIL Vol. 6, 2015

VERONIKA BÍLKOVÁ CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another” (Article 1). In the same year, the Pan-American Conference declared that “war of aggression constituted an international crime against the human species”. 57 All these instruments were quoted by the Nuremberg Tribunal, which confirmed that “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”. 58 After World War II, “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” was prohibited by the UN Charter [Article 2(4)]. In its Chapter VII, the UN Charter refers explicitly to “an act of aggression” (Article 39), which counts as one of the acts to trigger the UN collective security system. The UN Security Council invoked acts of aggression in its resolution on Southern Rhodesia or South Africa. 59 To provide guidance to the Security Council in the interpretation of Article 39, the UN General Assembly adopted, in 1974, Resolution 3314 on the Definition of Aggression. 60 The resolution confirms that “a war of aggression is a crime against international peace” and that “aggression gives rise to international responsibility” [Article 5(2)]. It also gives a list of acts which qualify as an act of aggression (by a state). The resolution has been invoked by the General Assembly in the resolutions relating to the Middle East or to Bosnia and Herzegovina. 61 The Friendly Relations Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970 to give an authoritative interpretation of the UN Charter, confirms that “a war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law”. 62 The prohibition of aggression undoubtedly protects important universal values. It seeks to prevent illegitimate wars and, by doing so, it not only contributes to the peaceful course of international relations but also helps save human lives. Waging war of aggression breaches the most fundamental rules of international law and shocks the conscience of humanity. The prohibition of aggression falls among peremptory norms of general international law ( jus cogens ). In the commentary to its 2001 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts , 63 the ILC notes that “those peremptory norms that are clearly accepted and recognized 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid., p. 8. 59 See, for instance, Resolution 411 (1977) on Southern Rhodesia or Resolution 387 (1976) on South Africa. 60 UN Doc. A/RES/3314 (XXIX), Definition of Aggression, 14 December 1974. 61 See, for instance, Resolution 3414 (XXX) of 1975 on the Middle East and Resolutions 46/242 and 47/121 of 1992 on Bosnia and Herzegovina. 62 UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970. 63 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for InternationallyWrongful Acts, with commentaries. In: UN Doc. A/56/10, Official Records of the General Assembly, 56th session, Supplement No. 10, 2001.

16