CYIL 2014

88 / 532

72
JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
(Politis report) was elaborated by the Committee on Security Questions containing
a draft act relating to the definition of aggression. The principal opponents of the
Soviet Union’s proposal and of any precise definition of aggression were, over the
years, the United Kingdom and the United States.9 No definition of aggression was
adopted by the Disarmament Conference. The Soviet Union and several other states
concluded on 3 and 4 July 1933 in London two conventions for the definition of
aggression. Czechoslovakia was signatory of one of these conventions. Ratifications
for both treaties were deposited in Moscow. A Definition of Aggression was contained
in the Convention for the Definition of Aggression between Afghanistan, Estonia,
Latvia, Persia, Poland, Romania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics andTurkey, signed
at London, on 3 July 1933.10 In the convention signed on 4 July by Czechoslovakia,
parties confirmed “the fact that the Briand-Kellogg Pact, of which they are signatories,
bans any aggression” and declared “it necessary, in the interest of the general security,
to define aggression specifically as possible…” They considered bringing this into force,
as between their countries precise rules defining aggression, until the time when these
rules shall become universal. Under Art. 2 the “aggressor in an international conflict”
shall be considered the state which is ,,the first to have taken one of the following
actions”: 1) declaration of war upon another State; 2) invasion of another state, with
or without a declaration of war; 3) attack with land, naval or air forces, with or without
a declaration of war, of the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State; 4) imposition
of a naval blockade of the shores or harbours of another state; 5) providing support
to armed bands formed in its territory which attacked the territory of another State
or which, in spite of the demands of attacked state, refuses to do all in its power to
deprive these bands of any support in its territory or protection. Art. 3 stipulated:
“No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as a pretext
or justification for aggression”. The Convention accepted in Art. 1 the definition
explained in the Politics Report of May 1933. In the Annex to Art. 3 the state parties
declared that no act of aggression may be justified: a) by the internal situation in
a state, for instance by its political, economic, or social structure; alleged weakness
of its administration; unrests originating from strikes, revolutions or civil war; by
international conduct of a state, for example by infringement of material or moral
rights or interest of a foreign state or its subjects; severance of diplomatic relations or
breaking off economic relations, or financial boycott; disputes related to economic,
financial or other obligations towards a foreign state; border incidents which do not
fall within the cases of aggression from Art. 2. Both conventions in fact contained
identical definitions.11 In the period between World War I and World War II no
precise definition of aggression was reached. Some definitions appeared in treaties
with a small number of signatories. The Soviet Union, who supported the idea of
9 See Schwebel S.M., supra note 1, p. 530.
10 L.N.T.S., No. 3391; see also Stone, J., supra note 1, p. 213; see also
dia/doc/dia20.html.
11 148 L.N.T.S., No. 3414; see also Stone, J., supra note 1, p. 213, see also Recueil des Traites SDN, 1934,
V.CXLVIII, No. 3414, pp. 212-219; see also: