CYIL Vol. 6, 2015

VERONIKA BÍLKOVÁ CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The political nature sets the crime of aggression somewhat apart from the other international crimes. It does not, however, prevent it from qualifying as one of these crimes, since, as we saw above, at the current stage of the development of international criminal law, aggression exhibit all the elements of an international crime. 5. Conclusions International crimes (or crimes under international law) are not subject to a uniform international definition. Yet, debates at the Rome and Kampala international conferences and among scholars reveal a consensus over the fact that an act cannot become an international crime unless: it has a legal basis in a rule of international law; this rule protects important universal values; this rule is specific and clear (with the definition of the crime); and the rule entails individual criminal responsibility. There is quite a bit of support at the international scene in favor of the view that aggression counts as an international crime. Although this qualification does not go unchallenged, this paper argued that the crime of aggression does indeed fulfill all the four criteria listed above. It has a firm legal basis in a rule of international law. The rule protects fundamental universal values, encompassing international peace and security as well as human lives. It entails individual criminal responsibility and has already given rise to prosecution at the individual level (in the post-WWII trials). And the crime of aggression is defined both in the Rome Statute of the ICC (Article 8 bis ) and, in its core elements, in international customary law. International crimes do not stand in any hierarchy with each other, and there are therefore no sound legal reasons why the crime of aggression should be considered the supreme international crime, as the Nuremberg Tribunal called it. At the same time, it is true that the crime of aggression exhibits certain particularities when compared to the other international crimes. The more prominent of them is its inherently political nature – the prosecution of the crime at the individual level is closely linked to, and conditioned by the determination of the responsibility of the state; the commission of the crime of aggression involves high level political or military leaders; and the special role of the UN Security Council has to be taken into account. The political nature sets the crime of aggression somewhat apart from the other international crimes but does not prevent it from falling into the same category of unlawful acts. Thus, although not the supreme international crime, the crime of aggression qualifies as an international crime and could give rise to the prosecution at the international and national level. Those considering the commission of this crime would do well to keep this in mind…

24