Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law

While the question of the crime of aggression has prompted a number of publications and discussions pertaining to its preferable modalities of inclusion in the Rome Statute, surprisingly few scholars have considered contemporary events and debates on the use of force. Examining developments like the right of unilateral humanitarian intervention (UHI) is crucial for ensuring that amendments to the Rome Statute, meant to allow for the prosecution of aggression, are compatible with the current international environment. This paper engages the issue of UHI and argues for the need to include, in the conditions of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by the ICC, an exception for those engaged in a bona fide unilateral humanitarian intervention.

Introduction
The criminal nature of aggression is now beyond question. The twentieth century has witnessed an increasing commitment to recognizing and condemning aggression, as exemplified by the renunciation of the recourse to war by the State Parties to the 1929 Kellogg-Briand Pact1 and the 1945 United Nations (U.N.) Charter, which includes among its primary purposes suppressing "acts of aggression" and preventing the "threat or use of force" by Member States in their international relations.2 The criminal prosecution of individuals for Crimes Against Peace,3 by the International Military Tribunals (IMT) of Nuremberg and the Far East following World War II, and the adoption of a consensual definition of "aggression" by the U.N. General Assembly in 1974,4 constitute other examples of international efforts to limit and outlaw aggression.

Efforts to recognize aggression as an offense under international criminal law, which were made over half a century, bore fruit in 1996 . . .

41 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. 379 (2009).

Download Entire Article . . .