![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0110.png)
96
MILAN LIPOVSKÝ
CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ
The
seventh understanding
16
is only concerned with evaluating whether an act
that has already been recognized as an act of aggression also possesses the “quality”
of a
manifest
violation of the Charter of the United Nations. While the seventh
understanding could be interpreted as requiring only two components (character,
gravity or scale) to be present for the manifest violation to occur, article 8 bis RC
clearly requires all three of them. However, when the source to be interpreted (article 8
bis RC) is clear, its interpretative provision (the seventh understanding) may not
successfully go against it unless it has the same status. However, the Understandings
are not amendments to the Statute (as is proven later) and so cannot overwrite the
Statute where it is clear. Moreover the understanding claims that no one component
is enough, and that is in compliance with requiring all three, as article 8 bis RC does,
because “no one” does not rule out “all of them”.
2.3 Problematic understandings
The last two remaining understandings (the
first
and
third understanding
) possess
the capacity to raise interpretative problems though. Disregarding small textual
differences, their wording is the same and claim that the ICC will be able to exercise
jurisdiction over the crime of aggression after two conditions will be fulfilled: firstly,
a decision by the Assembly of the States Parties according to art. 15 bis (3) and 15 ter
(3) RC; and secondly, when a one year period passes after the ratification / acceptance
of the amendments by the 30
th
State Party. Both these two requirements must be
fulfilled, and, if one occurs later, the jurisdiction will be activated as to the date of
the latter’s fulfilment.
These two conditions emanate from articles 15 bis and 15 ter RC, in both cases
from its sections two
17
and three.
18
The texts are the same. These two provisions,
however, encompass an inconspicuous perfidy. Sections 2 state that the prosecutable
acts are only those that will occur at least one year after ratification / acceptance of
the amendments by the 30
th
State Party (substantive effect). But sections 3 do not
carry a substantive effect; they only state that the ICC will be able to act after the re-
adoption decision, regardless of when the prosecuted act would happen (procedural
effect). Hence, without the Understandings, it could happen that the 30
th
ratification
would take place more than one year later than the Assembly of State Parties re-
adopts the amendments according to articles 15 bis (3) and 15 ter (3) RC. In such a
16
It is understood that in establishing whether an act of aggression constitutes a manifest violation of the
Charter of the United Nations, the three components of character, gravity and scale must be sufficient
to justify a “manifest” determination. No one component can be significant enough to satisfy the
manifest standard by itself.
17
The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after
the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.
18
The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject
to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for
the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.