Vol. 41, Nos. 2 & 3 (2009)
Vol. 41, No. 1 (2009)
Vol. 40, No. 3 (2009)
Vol. 40, Nos. 1 & 2 (2008)
Vol. 39, No. 3 (2007-08)
Vol. 39, Nos. 1 & 2 (2006-07)
Vol. 38, Nos. 3 & 4 (2006-07)
International Justice and Shifting Paradigms
Vol. 38, No. 2 (2006-07)
Vol. 38, No. 1 (2006)
Vol. 37, Nos. 2 & 3 (2006)
NUREMBERG AND CRIMES AGAINST PEACE
Henry T. King, Jr.
The Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University sponsored a symposium, "The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression," on September 26, 2008. The purpose of the conference was to assist the ICC Assembly of State Parties' Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression create a workable definition of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction over it. This transcript contains the remarks of Henry T. King, who delivered the opening address at the symposium.
Transcript:
The international community has long sought to define "aggression" in a way that would serve as an effective tool in sustaining peace. I think that for this conference, I could serve you best by reviewing the origin of the Nuremberg aggressive-war charge--a crime against peace,1 as defined by the victorious powers in the London Charter of August 8, 1945--and tracing the role the charge played through the twelve subsequent proceedings
at Nuremberg. By evaluating the checkered success of the aggression charge, I hope to provide context for the present effort to define aggression. Context will be vital to drafting a definition that will be both effective and acceptable to seven-eighths of the 106 or so nations of the governing assembly of states that have ratified the Rome Statute of July 1998.
One of the revolutionary aspects of Nuremberg was that it held individuals
responsible for the criminal acts they committed in the name of
their country. Aggressive war was, up until then, an "act of state" . . .
41 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. 273 (2009).
