83 / 532
67
THE DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION AND THE USE OF FORCE
THE DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION
AND THE USE OF FORCE
Josef Mrázek
Abstract:
This study is trying to analyse nearly 100 years of current efforts to
define “aggression”, starting with attempts in LN and finishing with the ICC 2010
definition of the crime of aggression. The study reflects arguments in favour of
and against the definition in the whole history of the definition of aggression and
various conflicting views. The definition of aggression is closely related to armed
attack and selfdefense. This paper asks whether the notion “act of aggression” in
the Kampala definition differs from the jus ad bellum 1974 Definition of Aggression
and in what way the Kampala definition of the crime of aggression departs from the
jus ad bellum concept, including international customary law. The basic question
for the author is what impact this “dichotomy” of both definitions will have on
the jus ad bellum definition of aggression in future. Not every unlawful use of
armed force equates to an “act of aggression” or even to “crime of aggression”.
In the author’s view it is rather difficult to decide which act of aggression does
not amount to a “crime of aggression”. The concern about the future impact of
the Kampala definition on the jus ad bellum definition of aggression seems to be
justified, however. It will also depend on the effectivity of the ICC jurisdiction
in prosecuting crimes of aggression which may substantially affect jus ad bellum
understanding of aggression. Serious concern has been expressed that this definition
may even do harm to the jus ad bellum definition of aggression. Every act of
aggression under the Kampala 2010 definition must fall within Art.8 bis (2) of
the ICC Statute. The threshold of an act of aggression for the Kampala “crime of
aggression” is given in Art.8 bis (1) “by its character and scale” which “constitutes
a manifest violation of the UN Charter. At the Kampala Review Conference
a package of amendments on the crime of aggression was adopted by consensus.
In fact, we now have two somewhat dissimilar definitions of “aggression” in public
international law. Besides, it seems that the Kampala definition also departs from
the international customary law. The Kampala definition is elsewhere described
as a “compromise” and even as a “historic agreement”. For international criminal
law the Kampala definition was certainly a success.
Resumé:
Studie se pokouší analyzovat téměř 100 let opakujících se pokusů definovat
“agresi“, počínajíc ve SN a končíc definicí zločinu agrese Mezinárodního trestního
soudu z r. 2010. Studie si všímá argumentů a různých stanovisek pro i proti přijetí
definice agrese v celém jejím historickém vývoji. Definice agrese je těsně svázána s poj-
my ozbrojeného útoku a sebeobrany. Toto pojednání zkoumá otázku, zda pojem
“akt
agrese“
v definici z Kampaly se liší od
jus ad bellum
Definice Agrese z r. 1974 a jakým
způsobem se definice zločinu z Kampaly odchyluje od koncepce
jus ad bellum
, včetně