Source: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780199238323.001.0001/law-9780199238323-div1-229
Timestamp: 2014-11-01 04:29:04
Document Index: 215399375

Matched Legal Cases: ['Sui Generis', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 5', '§ 195', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 16', 'art 2', 'Art.16', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 5', 'Art.6', 'UKHL ', 'art 2', 'Art.5', 'art 3', 'Art.25', 'Art.6', 'Art.7']

Oxford Public International Law: Part B Issues, Institutions, and Personalities, A, Aggression
Part B Issues, Institu...
The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (2009-01-22)Preliminary MaterialEditorsEditor-in-chiefEditorial CommitteeForewordContentsList of ContributorsGlossary and List of Abbreviations(Treaties, Laws, Agreements, Courts, Institutions, References and Legal Materials) etc.Shorthand references for books, journals, and law resources and reference worksWebsites with resources on international criminal lawOfficial Websites of Courts and TribunalsNGOs and OrganizationsOther SourcesTables of CasesArgentinaAustraliaBelgiumBosnia-HerzegovinaCanadaCanadian Military CourtsChileControl Commission CourtsDenmarkEast Timor Special Panel for Serious CrimesEthiopiaEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFranceFrench Military TribunalsGermanyGreeceIndonesiaInter-American Court of Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Criminal CourtIraqIsraelItalyJapanMexicoNetherlandsNigeriaNorwayNuremburg—International Military TribunalOttoman EmpirePermanent Court of International JusticePolandRwandaRwanda—International Criminal TribunalSenegalSierra Leone—Special CourtSouth AfricaSpainSwitzerlandTokyo—International Military Tribunal for the Far EastUN Committee Against TortureUN Human Rights CommitteeUnited KingdomUnited Kingdom Military CourtsUnited StatesUS Military TribunalsUSSRYugoslaviaYugoslavia—International Criminal TribunalTable of National Legislation and other National TextsArgentinaAustraliaBelgiumBosnia-HerzegovinaBritish Zone of Control in GermanyBulgariaCambodiaCanadaChileChinaCongoDenmarkEl SalvadorEthiopiaFranceGermanyIndonesiaIraqIsraelItalyKosovoLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaNetherlandsNetherlands East IndiesNew ZealandNorwayOttoman EmpirePeruPolandRwandaSierra LeoneSouth AfricaSpainSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited KingdomUnited StatesUSSRYugoslaviaTable of Treaties and other International InstrumentsMain TextPart A Major Problems of International Criminal JusticeI How to Face International CrimesCollective Violence and International Crimes1 Introduction2 Interpretations by Social Scientists3 Group Boundaries: Ingroup and Outgroup4 Genocide Victims, Torture, Denial, and Therapeutic Approaches5 Recognition and Reparation for Victims of Collective Violence6 ConclusionState Responsibility and Criminal Liability of Individuals1 Introduction2 Theories on Individual Responsibility3 State Responsibility and Individual Criminal Liability as Distinct Regimes4 The Relevance of Primary Rules of Conduct to Secondary Rules of Responsibility5 National Enforcement6 International Enforcement7 ConclusionBibliographyAlternatives to International Criminal Justice1 Introduction2 National Courts3 Truth Commissions4 Non-criminal Sanctions5 Reparations and Other Forms of Redress for Victims6 Amnesties and Pardons7 ConclusionBibliographyII Fundamentals of International Criminal LawSources of International Criminal Law1 Introduction2 The Application of International Law in Domestic Prosecutions for International Crimes3 Sources of ICL Applied by International TribunalsA The Statutes of the TribunalsB Elements of Crimes, Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Other RegulationsC Other TreatiesD Customary International LawE General Principles of LawF Judicial DecisionsBibliographyGeneral Principles of International Criminal Law1 Introduction2 Fundamental Principles3 International Element4 The Structure of Crimes Under International LawA Material ElementB Mental ElementC Grounds for Excluding Criminal ResponsibilityD Requirements for Prosecution5 Individual Criminal Responsibility6 Superior Responsibility7 Inchoate Crimes8 Omissions9 Official Capacity and Immunity10 Multiplicity of OffencesBibliographyInternational Criminalization of Prohibited Conduct1 The Emergence of International Criminal Rules Prohibiting Some International Crimes2 Which Conducts are Criminalized by International Law?3 …And Those that are Not4 The Relevance of the International Criminalization of Prohibited Conduct: its Corollaries and ChallengesA International Crimes Proper and Treaty-based CrimesB What the International Criminalization of Individuals’ Conduct entails for States in the Area of Criminal LawC The Inconsistency of Some Traditional Legal Constructs with the International Criminalization of Individuals’ ConductBibliographyGender-related Violence and International Criminal Law and Justice1 Introduction2 The Meaning of ‘Gender-related’ Violence3 The Statutes of the ICTY and the ICTR4 The Statute of the ICC5 ICTY and ICTR Jurisprudence6 The Problem of Definition7 The Question of Coercion and Consent8 ConclusionsBibliographyModes of International Criminal Liability1 Introduction2 Participation3 Participation and Inchoate Crimes4 Superior Responsibility5 Individual Guilt6 Customary International Law7 LegalityBibliographyIII The Interplay of International Criminal Law and Other Bodies of LawComparative Criminal Law as a Necessary Tool for the Application of International Criminal Law1 The Place of Comparative Law in the Practice of International Criminal CourtsA Procedural LawB Substantive Law2 The Meaning of Comparative Law in a Simultaneously International and Criminal ContextA International LawB Criminal Law3 ConclusionThe Influence of the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions on International Criminal Law1 General DifferencesA Substantive Criminal Law2 Institutional DifferencesA Jury Trial, More Broadly, Lay ParticipationB Day in CourtC Adversary SystemHumanitarian Law and International Criminal Law1 Introduction2 Definition and Differentiation3 Provisions on International Criminal Responsibility Contained in International Humanitarian Law4 Enforcement of International Humanitarian Law through International Criminal Law: Advantages5 Contribution of International Criminal Law and Justice to the Development of International Humanitarian LawA Development of the Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Bringing it Closer to IHL of International Armed Conflicts)B Clarification of the Line Separating International from Non-International Armed ConflictsC Redefinition of the Concept of Protected Persons in International Armed ConflictsD Clarification of the Geographical, Material, Temporal and Active and Passive Personal Fields of Application of IHLE Interpretation of a Great Number of Substantive Provisions of IHL6 Risks of International Criminal Law and International Criminal Justice for International Humanitarian LawA Theoretical Risks which Did Not MaterializeB Risks which have Partially Materialized7 ConclusionBibliographyIV International Criminal TrialsThe Rationale for International Criminal Justice1 Introduction2 The Failings of National Courts3 Three Fall-back Alternatives to Territorial Jurisdiction: Resort to Criminal or Civil Courts of Other States or to International CourtsA National Criminal CourtsB National Civil CourtsC International Criminal Courts and Tribunals(i) Merits of International Jurisdiction(ii) The Historical Development of International Criminal Justice(a) The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal(b) The ICTY and the ICTR(c) The International Criminal Court(d) Mixed Courts4 The Prospect for International Criminal JusticeBibliographyInternational Criminal Justice in Historical Perspective: The Tension Between States’ Interests and the Pursuit of International Justice1 The Postulate of International Criminal Justice2 The Evolution of International Criminal Justice3 ConclusionThe International Criminal Court as a Turning Point in the History of International Criminal Justice1 Introduction2 The ICC and Fundamental Principles of Criminal JusticeA Moving from Victor’s and Ad hoc Justice towards Equality before ICLB The Unprecedented Emphasis on Nullum Crimen Sine Lege in the ICC Statute3 Cornerstones of the ICC StatuteA Codification of the Second Generation of Substantive ICLB The Crystallization of a General Part of ICLC An International Criminal Procedure Sui Generis(i) The Various Stages of Proceedings(ii) State Cooperation4 ChallengesA The Crime of Aggression: Completing the CodificationB Transnational Terrorism: Towards a Third Generation of ICL?C The Dangers of a Policy of Quasi-Consensual International Criminal Justice Against Non-state ActorsD The ICC and National Criminal Courts: Flexible Strategy against Impunity or System of International Criminal Justice?E The Amnesty Issue: The Irresolution of Rome5 ConclusionBibliographyThe International Criminal Court and Third States1 Introduction2 Third States: the Law of Treaties3 The Articles of the ICCSt. Relevant to Third StatesA Jurisdiction1 Article 12(2)2 Article 12(2) and (3)3 Article 13(b)4 A Question as to AdmissibilityB Substantive Law IssuesC Evidence GatheringD Cooperation1 Competing Requests for Assistance2 Information, Property or Persons under the Control of Third States3 Surrender or Assistance Affecting Existing International Obligations4 Cooperation by Third States as a Matter of Obligation5 The Activities of the Preparation Commission6 The FutureBibliographyPolitics and Justice: The Role of the Security Council1 Introduction2 Domestic Politics3 The Politics of the Security CouncilA The Establishment of International Criminal JurisdictionsB The Security Council and the ICC—The Politics of Referral and DeferralC The Choice of the Applicable LawD Enforcing International Cooperation in Theory and in Practice4 ConclusionBibliographyProblematic Features of International Criminal Procedure1 Introduction: Ends and Means2 The Bipolar Tension3 The Problem of GoalsA OverabundanceB Internal TensionsC Absence of Ranking Order4 Procedural Goals and the Polarization of IssuesA Making a Historical RecordB Satisfying Crime VictimsC Promoting Human RightsD Conclusion5 Searching for a Paramount Goal6 Procedural Implications of the Didactic Goal7 Final RemarksCooperation of States with International Criminal Tribunals1 Introduction2 Preliminary Remarks3 Shaping Cooperation Law: Jurisprudential Developments4 Understanding the Vertical Cooperation ModelA Grounds for RefusalB ReciprocityC Dispute SettlementD Evaluation5 Duty to Cooperate under International LawA Legal BasisB Content of the Duty to Cooperate6 Enforcement of the Duty to Cooperate7 Concluding ObservationsBibliographyMeans of Gathering Evidence and Arresting Suspects in Situations of States’ Failure to Cooperate1 Introduction2 Third StatesA Obtaining SuspectsB Collecting Evidence1 Victims/Witnesses2 Other Evidence3 International ActorsA International OrganizationsB Non-Governmental Organizations and Private Individuals4 Accomplices and Co-perpetrators5 ConclusionBibliographyInternational v. National Prosecution of International Crimes1 Introduction2 Modes of Enforcement: International—National—Hybrid3 Distributing Jurisdiction: Modes and Criteria4 Towards a System of International Criminal JusticeBibliographyJudicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint in International Criminal Justice1 Introduction2 The Unspoken Risks of Restraint3 The Role of Judges in International Criminal Law4 ConclusionBibliographyPart B Issues, Institutions, and PersonalitiesAAbuse of Process (in International Criminal Proceedings)Accusatorial v. Inquisitorial ModelAccused (Rights of)AcquittalActive Personality PrincipleActus ReusAd Litem JudgesAdversarial v. Inquisitorial Model(a) Adversarial v. Inquisitorial Model(b) Adversarial v. Inquisitorial Model(c) Adversarial v. Inquisitorial ModelAffidavitAggravating CircumstancesAggressionAiding and AbettingAlibiAlien Tort StatuteAmendments to the RPE (ICTY and ICTR)American Servicemen Protection ActAmicus CuriaeAmnestyAnonymous WitnessApartheid as an International CrimeAppealArbitrary Arrests and DetentionsArmed ConflictArmenian GenocideArmenians (Massacres of)Arms TraffickingArrest and Surrender1 ArrestA Power to request arrestB Conditions for issuing an arrest warrantC Addressees of arrest warrantsD Implementation of arrest warrantsE Remedies for unlawful arrest2 SurrenderArticle 98 (ICCSt.) AgreementsAttack on CiviliansAttemptAut Dedere Aut JudicareBBailBelgian Legislation on International CrimesBernard, HenriBernays, Murray C.Beyond Reasonable DoubtBiddle, FrancisBlockburger TestBosnian Special CourtBurden of ProofCChapeau ElementsChapter VII Measures (UN Charter) (with regard to International Tribunals)Child Soldiers (Recruitment and Use in Armed Conflict)Child WitnessesCivilians (Attacks on)Civilians (Protection of)(i) Civilians (Protection of)(ii) Civilians (Protection of)(iii) Civilians (Protection of)(iv) Civilians (Protection of)Civil Remedies for International Crimes1 Remedies in the state where the crime occurred or which is responsible for the crime2 Remedies in the domestic courts of other states3 Obstacles to proceedings4 Civil remedies in international tribunalsCode of Conduct for Defence Counsel (Appearing before International Criminal Courts and Tribunals)CombatantsCommand Responsibility1 Superior-subordinate relationship2 Mens rea3 Failure to prevent or punishCommission on the Responsibility of Authors of War (Report of)Commissions of InquiryCommon Article 3Compensation to VictimsComplicity in GenocideConcentration CampsConspiracyContempt of CourtControl Council Law No. 10Counsel (Right to)Courts MartialCrimes Against Humanity1 Origin of the Notion2 The Nuremberg Tribunal3 The ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda4 The ICCSt.5 Concluding remarksCross-examinationCulpaCulpabilityCumulative ConvictionsDDeath Penalty (International Crimes)De Facto CommandDefence CounselDefence Counsel Associations (International Bar Associations)DefencesDefendant (Rights of)DeferralDe Jure CommandDeportation and Forcible TransferDeschênes, JulesDetention (Ad Hoc International Tribunals)Detention (Conditions of)Direct ExaminationDisappearances (Forced)DisclosureDiscoveryDisqualificationDocumentary EvidenceDolus EventualisDolus SpecialisDonnedieu De Vabres, HenriDouble JeopardyDrug TraffickingDuressDuty to PunishEEast Timor Special PanelsEffective ControlElements of Crimes (in the ICC)Enemy CombatantsEnforced DisappearancesEnforcement of SentencesEquality of ArmsEthnic CleansingEuropean Arrest WarrantEvidence1 The development of the law of evidence2 The scope of the evidentiary process3 The admission of evidenceExamination-in-chiefExculpatory EvidenceEx Post Facto LawExcuses and JustificationsExtenuating CircumstancesExtermination (as a Crime Against Humanity)ExtraditionExtraordinary Chambers of Cambodia1 Establishment2 Organization and operationFFair TrialFinancing (of Persons or Groups Committing International Crimes)1 Drugs and Transnational Organized Crime2 Financing of Terrorism3 Listing and DelistingForced MarriagesForced PregnancyFreezing of Assets1 The Notion2 Conflict with Human Rights Standards3 The Practice of International Criminal Tribunals4 The Immunity of Certain Categories of Persons from Executive MeasuresGGacacaGeneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols1 Origins and Common Features of the Conventions2 Innovations Introduced by the two Additional Protocols of 19773 The Third Additional Protocol of 20054 Major Developments due to ICL5 Current Challenges to the Conventions and Additional ProtocolsGenocide1 Actus reusA The notion of ‘group’B The question of whether a genocidal policy is always required2 Mens reaGerman Law on International CrimesGrave BreachesGuantánamoGuerillasGuilty Plea(i) Guilty Plea(ii) Guilty Plea(iii) Guilty Plea(iv) Guilty PleaHHague Conventions on the Laws of WarfareHate CrimesHeadquarters AgreementsHearsayHijackingHolocaustHostage TakingHost StateHuman TraffickingIICC (Appellate Proceedings)ICC (Charges)ICC (Complementarity)ICC (Deferral)ICC (Office of the Prosecutor)ICC (Pre-trial Proceedings)ICC (Structure and Functioning)ICC (Trial Proceedings)ICC (Trigger Mechanisms)ICTR1 Introduction2 Mandate3 Structure4 Proceedings5 Rwanda6 Completion StrategyICTYICTY and ICTR (Appellate Proceedings)ICTY and ICTR (Bureau)ICTY and ICTR (Completion Strategy)ICTY and ICTR (Indictment)ICTY and ICTR (Pre-trial Proceedings)(a) ICTY and ICTR (Pre-trial Proceedings)(b) ICTY and ICTR (Pre-trial Proceedings)(c) ICTY and ICTR (Pre-trial Proceedings)ICTY and ICTR (Trial Proceedings)ICTY and ICTR (Sentencing)1 Sentencing Factors2 Available Measures of Punishment3 The Serving of SentencesImmunities of Persons from Jurisdiction1 Introduction2 Functional Immunity and International Crimes3 Personal Immunities and International CrimesImmunity of PropertyImpartiality of JudgesInchoate CrimesIncitement (to Commit Genocide)Independence and Impartiality of TribunalsInquiry CommissionsInquisitorial v. Accusatorial ModelInstigationIntentInterlocutory AppealInternal Armed ConflictInternational Armed ConflictInternational Committee of the Red CrossInternationalized Armed ConflictIntoxicationInvestigationsIraqi High TribunalJJackson, RobertJahrreiss, HermannJaranilla, DelfinJoinderJoint Criminal Enterprise1 Emergence of JCE2 Subsequent Application of JCE by International and Internationalized Tribunals3 The Common Criminal Purpose Requirement4 The Contribution Requirement5 Membership in the JCE6 JCE as a form of Commission7 Criticisms of JCEJoint TrialsJudges (Appointment, etc.)Judicial NoticeJurisdiction (Principles of)Jurisdictional ChallengesJustificationsKKama, LaïtyKeenan, JosephKelsen, HansKosovo Special CourtsKranzbühler, OttoLLatin American Truth and Reconciliation CommissionLauterpacht, Sir HerschLawful CombatantsLawrence, Lord JusticeLegal Aid (Assistance)Leipzig Supreme CourtLieber CodeLi, HaopeiMMartens ClauseMay, RichardMens Rea1 Mens Rea2 Mens ReaMental DiseaseMilitary CommissionsMilitary Commissions and Courts-Martial in the USAMilitary ObjectivesMilitary TribunalsMistake of FactMistake of LawMitigating CircumstancesMixed or Internationalized CourtsMoney LaunderingMotiveMultiple AccusedMurderNNational Legislation on International CrimesNationality PrincipleNational Security Interests (Protection of)Ne Bis in IdemNecessity and DuressNegligenceNexus with Armed ConflictNexus with Widespread and Systematic AttacksNikitchenko, I.T.Non-retroactivityNullum Crimen Sine Lege1 Specificity2 Non-retroactivity3 Ban on Analogy4 Favor reiNuremberg International Military Tribunal1 Backdrop2 The London Negotiations3 The London Charter4 The Indictment and the Trial5 The Judgment6 CritiquesNuremberg Trial(s)OOffences Against the Administration of JusticeOmissionOrderingOther Inhumane ActsPPal, RadhabinodPardon and Commutation of SentencesPassive Personality PrinciplePenaltiesPersecution1 Discriminatory Purpose2 Definition of Persecutory ActsPillagePiracyPlanningPresumption of InnocencePre-trial ChamberPre-trial CustodyPre-trial Judge (ICTY, ICTR)Primacy (of Ad Hoc Tribunals)Principle of Legality (General)Prisoners of WarPrivileges and Immunities of International Personnel1 Introduction2 The Core Issue: Immunity from the Jurisdiction of Foreign States3 Immunities Accruing to Military and Civilian Personnel Taking Part in International Peacekeeping OperationsProhibited WeaponsProof (Burden of)1 Arrest2 The Guilt of the Accused in Respect of the Charges against Him3 Sentencing4 Other decisionsProportionalityProsecutorial DiscretionProtected ObjectsProtected PersonsProtective Principle (Jurisdiction)Provisional ReleaseRRape1 Rape2 RapeRebelsRecklessnessRecusal of JudgesReferralRegistryRenditions (Extraordinary)Reparations to VictimsRespect for Human Rights in International Criminal ProceedingsRetroactive LegislationReview ProceedingsRöLing, BernardusRome Diplomatic Conference (1998)Rule 61 Proceedings (ICTY, ICTR)Rules of Procedure and EvidenceRussell TribunalRwandan Genocide Cases1 Jurisdiction of the Specialized ChambersA GeneralB Subject-Matter Jurisdictioni Genocide and Crimes against Humanityii Crimes under the Rwandan Penal Code2 Procedural ProblemsA Confession and Guilty Plea ProcedureB Rights of the DefendantC Conduct of TrialsD Right to a Lawyer for the Civil Petitioners (parties civiles)E Investigation of the Crime Scene and Interrogation of Witnesses by the TribunalF Allegations of TortureG Appeal3 Outcome of TrialsA Classification and PenaltiesB AcquittalsC Mitigating CircumstancesD Civil ClaimsSSafe-ConductSelf-DefenceSelf-RepresentationSentencingSeparate and Dissenting OpinionsSeriousnessServatius, RobertSexual ViolenceSidhwa, R. S.SlaverySpanish Legislation on International CrimesSpecial Court for Sierra LeoneSpecial IntentSpecial Tribunal for LebanonSpecificity of International Criminal RulesStandard of ProofStatute of LimitationsSubpoenasSuperior OrdersSuperior ResponsibilitySurrenderSuspectSuspension of Proceedings by the UN SCTTargeting (Rules on)Taylor, TelfordTerritoriality PrincipleTerror, as found in GalićTerrorism1 Defining Terrorism under International LawA Early DevelopmentsB Developments from the 1990s to Date2 Individual Criminal Responsibility for Terrorism3 Terror in IHL as a War CrimeTimor Leste Special PanelsTokyo International Military TribunalTortureTotality Principle (in Sentencing)Transitional JusticeTreaty-based Crimes1 Introduction2 History and Development3 CritiquesTrial in AbsentiaTruth and Reconciliation Commissions (General)1 Incidence2 Restorative Justice Focus3 ProblemsA JusticeB TruthC ResponsibilityTruth and Reconciliation Commissions in Africa and Asia1 Africa2 AsiaTruth and Reconciliation Commissions in Latin America1 Introduction2 Latin American TRCs3 Operation of TRCs and Their Effects4 ConclusionTruth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa1 Work of the TRC2 Findings and Recommendations of the TRC3 LegacyTu Quoque PrincipleUUnexploded OrdnancesUnited Nations War Crimes CommissionUniversal JurisdictionUniversality PrincipleUnlawful CombatantsUS Military Tribunals sitting at NurembergVVictims (Compensation)Victims’ Participation in International ProceedingsWWang, T.Wanton Destruction Not Justified by Military NecessityWar Crimes (International Armed Conflicts)War Crimes (Non-international Armed Conflicts)Webb, William FloodWilful KillingWitness ProtectionPart C CasesAA. and Others V. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)Abbaye Ardenne CaseAbdüL Kerim Bey and Others (Trial for the Deportations from Beyük Dere)Afghan Asylum Seekers CaseAhlbrechtAhmed Mithad Bey and Others (Trial of the Regional Party Secretaries)AkayesuAleksovskiAllers and OthersAlmelo Case[No Title]Major Legal PointsAraki and OthersArdeatine Caves Massacre CaseARLTArrest Warrant CaseAuschwitz Concentration Camp CaseAussaressesAzanian Peoples OrganizationBB (Germany)B (The Netherlands)Baba MasaoBabićBagilishemaBagosora (Military I)Bahâeddîn Şâkir Bey and Others (Harput trial)BanovićBarayagwizaBarbieLegal proceedingsMain legal issuesGrounds for non-applicability of extradition law and of statute of limitationsThe broadening of the category of ‘victims’ of crimes against humanityBarnblattBarrios AltosBeiskyBellmerBelsen TrialBisengimanaBizimanaBizimungu (Government II)BizumutimaBL.Blagojević and JokićIndictmentProcedural MattersTrial JudgmentAppeal JudgmentBlaškićTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsBlaškić Subpoena ProceedingsTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsBoniniBorkum Island CasesBosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and MontenegroBoudarelBouterseBraloBrandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)FactsSummary of the Decision1 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)2 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)3 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)4 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)5 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)6 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)7 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)8 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)9 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)10 Brandt and Others (The Medical Trial or The Doctors’ Trial)Sentence and ConvictionMajor Legal IssuesBrđaninTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsJoint Criminal EnterpriseExterminationBritish Prosecutions Arising Out of the War in IraqBrownBuck and OthersBuhlerButare CaseButare FourBuzzacott v. HillCC. and B.CalleyCappellini and OthersCaroelli and OthersCastroCavalloČelebićiČešićCoard and OthersColognaCyangugu CaseDDamiriDelalić and Others (Čelebići)IndictmentTrial JudgmentAppeal JudgmentDemjanjuk, Ivan (John)Demjanjuk, JohnDeportations from Beyük Dere TrialDeronjićDithmar and Boldt (Llandovery Castle case)DjajićDoctors’ TrialDover Castle CaseDRC v. UgandaDudley and StephensDulag Luft CaseDujailDusingizeEEck and Others (Peleus trial)E. van E.Ehel. M.Eichmann1 Eichmann2 Eichmann3 Eichmann3.1 Eichmann3.2 Eichmann4 Eichmann5 EichmannEinsatzgruppen CaseEisentragerEngelEnigsterEnkelsrothErdemovićJudge Cassese’s Opinion and Customary International LawGeneral Principles and Judge Stephen’s OpinionCombining Elements of Custom and General PrinciplesThe Joint Opinion of Judges McDonald and Vohrah and Policy ArgumentsThe Importance of ErdemovićFollow-up ProceedingsEschnerEssen Lynching CaseEx Parte MilliganEx Parte QuirinFF.Faurisson v. FranceFerriniFeurstein and Others (Ponzano case)FilártigaFintaMajor Legal PointsJurisdictionMens rea for Crimes Against Humanity and War CrimesDefence of Obedience to Superior OrdersConstitutionality of the Canadian War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity LegislationSubsequent Case LawFleschFlick and OthersFactsSummary of the DecisionSentence and ConvictionMajor Legal IssuesFofana and KondewaTrialEffective ControlCrimes Against HumanityJoint Criminal EnterpriseLegitimate Use of Force and the Defence of NecessitySexual Violence CrimesFriedmanFröhlichFullriedeFumiFurundžijaChargesTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsMajor Legal IssuesGGacumbitsiGaddafiGalićThe Siege of SarajevoTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsThe Partial Dissenting Opinions on AppealAssessmentGaltieriGatanaziGatoranoGerike and Others (Velpke Baby Home case)Gestapo Informer CaseGlenn and HickmanGöGöbell and Others (Borkum Island case)GoldsteinGöring and OthersThe Historic IMT TrialThe Four Counts of the IndictmentThe 24 Defendants (Name, Position, Defence Counsel, Charges/Verdict/Sentence, Notes)Individual Criminal Responsibility for Acts of State (Art. 7 London Charter)Aggression (Art. 6(a) London Charter—including nullum crimen sine lege)Conspiracy (Art. 6 London Charter)War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (Art. 6(b) and (c) London Charter)Victors’ Justice (one-sided application of law; tu quoque; Katyn)The Legacy of NurembergAddendum: The Six Indicted Organizations and Collective Guilt (Art. 10 London Charter)Golkel and Thirteen Others (La Grande Fosse)Gozawa and OthersGrabez[No Title]Main Legal IssuesGrumpelt (the Scuttled U-Boat case)Guatemalan GeneralsGuterresGutwenigerHH.H. v. Public Prosecutor.H. and OthersHaaseHabréHadamar TrialHadžihasanović and KuburaChargesTrial JudgmentLegal IssuesHaesikerHalilovićChargesTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsMajor Legal IssuesHamdanHamdiHansHaradinajChargesTrial ProceedingsHarlan (Jud Süss case)Harput TrialHechingen and Haigerloch Deportation CaseHermannHerrodHeyer and Others (Essen Lynching case)HeynenHigh Command CaseHinrichsenHinselmann and OthersHölzer and OthersHommaHonigmanHostage CaseIIg-Farben CaseJJ. and R.JankovićJavor and OthersJelisićChargesTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsJepsenJokićTrial JudgmentAppeal JudgmentJorgićThe German ProceedingsLegal Findings of the CourtsCriticismJung and SchumacherJustice TrialKK.K. and M.K. and S. (Synagogue case)Kadić v. KaradžićKajelijeliTrial JudgmentAppeal JudgmentKambandaKamuhandaKappler and OthersKaramiraKaremeraKareraKayishema and RuzindanaKeenanKemâl Bey and Tevfîk Bey (Yozgat trial)KesserlingKillinger and Others (Dulag Luft case)KinderKlein and Others (Hadamar trial)KnezevićKöppelmannKoppelstätter and PlattnerKordić and ČerkezTrial ProceedingsAppeal ProceedingsAssessmentKoshiroKotällaKottsiepenKouwenhovenKrajišnikKramer and Others (Belsen trial)Krauch and Others (IG-Farben case)[No Title]Main Legal PointsKrnojelacTrial ProceedingsKrnojelac’s AppealProsecution AppealAssessmentKrstićProceedingsIntent to Destroy in Whole or in PartAiding and Abetting Genocide versus Complicity in GenocideKrumkamp[No Title]Main Legal IssuesKunaracKupreškićKušljićKuswani and OthersKvočka and OthersTrial ProceedingsCommon Grounds of AppealOther Grounds of AppealAssessmentLL. and OthersLa Grande FosseLagesLauleLehnigk and SchusterLimajTrial ProceedingsLegal IssuesAppeal JudgmentList and Others (Hostage case)FactsSummary of DecisionSentence and ConvictionMajor Legal IssuesLlandovery Castle CaseLubanga DyiloMM.M. and G.M. and OthersMaltauro and OthersMälzer and Others (Ardeatine Caves Massacre case)[No Title]Trial ProceedingsMcmonagleMedia CaseMedical TrialMedinaMehmed Ali Bey and Others (Trial for the Trabzon Deportations and Massacres)MeirMengistu Hailemariam and OthersMentenMeyer (The Abbaye Ardenne case)MilchFactsSummary of DecisionSentence and ConvictionMajor Legal IssuesMilošević D.Milošević S.The IndictmentsAmici CuriaeProsecution CaseRule 98bis DecisionReplacement of Judge MayAssignment of Defence CounselApplication to Re-Open the CaseSubpoenas for Incumbent and Former Heads of StateSeverance and Additional Time for the DefenceProvisional Release and Termination of the ProceedingsMinistries CaseMittermairMitterstielerMotosukeMpambaraMrðaMrkšić and OthersIndictmentFindings on the Responsibility of the AccusedMugabeMugeseraFactsDecisionMajor Legal PointsMuhimanaMuhozaMukantagaraMulka and Others (Auschwitz Concentration Camp case)Müller and Others (I)Müller and Others (II)Mundo and Weiss (Trial of Erich Weiss and Wilhelm Mundo)Munyeshyaka (case of the Rwandan priest)MusemaMuvunyiMy Lai TrialNNadler and OthersNahimana and Others (Media case)GenocideDirect and public incitementConspiracyCrimes against humanityDissenting OpinionsSentenceNaletilić and MartinovićNatzweiler TrialNazi Atrocities in Kharkov and the Kharkov Region CaseNdikumwamiNdindiliyimana and Others (Military II case)NeddermeierNeitzNeubacherNeumann K. (Dover Castle case)Neumann R.NgomambiligiNikolić D.Nikolić M.NiyitegekaNiyontezeNiyonzimaNtagandaNtagerura and Others (Cyangugu)NtakirutimanaNuremberg TrialsNwaogaNyiramasuhuko and Others (Butare case)Nulyarimma V. ThompsonNzabirindaNzabonimana and NdashyikirwaOO.ObrenovićOhlendorf and Others (Einsatzgruppen case)FactsSummary of DecisionSentence and ConvictionMajor Legal IssuesOrićOttoman Leaders’ TrialPP.P. and OthersPadillaPalPaponMens Rea and Individual Complicity to Crimes Against HumanityDefence of Duress and NecessityMembership in the ResistancePeleus TrialPilzPinochetBackgroundPinochet (No. 1)Pinochet (No. 2)Pinochet (No. 3)Post-Decision DevelopmentsPlavšić[No Title]Major Legal IssuesPolish Prisoner of War CasePonzano Case.PotterPriebke and HassPriyantoPublic Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel.RR. v. Evans and OthersR. v. Kenyon and OthersR. v. Olditch; R. v. JonesR. v. PayneR. v. Selman and OthersRajićRamdohrRamićRasulRauterRegional Party Secretaries’ Trial.Retzlaff and OthersRöchling and OthersRugambararaRuggiuRumsfeld, DonaldGerman ProceedingsFrench ProceedingsRupyisi and MusemakweliRusha CaseRutagandaRutaganiraRwamakubaSS.S. and Others (Hechingen and Haigerloch Deportation case)Sa’īd Halīm Paşa and Others, Tal’at Paşa and Others (Trial of the Ottoman Leaders)Sablić and OthersSandrock and Others (Almelo case)SarićSäveckeSawoniukSch.Sch. O.Schintlholzer and FritzSchmittSchonfeld and OthersSchreiner Z.SchultzSchwarzSchwittkowskiScilingoScuttled U-Boat CaseSebastienSedyonoSeifertSemanzaSepúlveda and Others (Sandoval case)Sergeant W.SerombaSerugendoSerushagoŠešeljSharon and OthersShimoda and OthersSikirica and OthersSilaenSimbaSimić B. and OthersSimić M.Sipo CaseSmithSoaresSoedjarwoSokolovićSosaSpadiniStakićTrial JudgmentAppeal JudgmentRemarksStalag Luft III CaseStankovićStenger and CrusiusSt-DieStraub and Others (SIPO case)Strauch and OthersStrugarSudrajatSumida and OthersSuratmanSureshSynagogue CaseTT. and K.Tachiona V. Mugabe and Others (Tachiona II)TadićProceedingsSignificance of the CaseCharacterization of the Armed ConflictCrimes Against HumanityIndividual Criminal Responsibility and Joint Criminal EnterpriseTargeted KillingsThe Legal FrameworkStatus of Members of Terrorist Organizations in Palestinian TerritoryCivilians Taking Direct Part in Hostilities as Legitimate Military TargetFurther ConditionsTarnekTaylor (Immunity case)Tesch and Others (Zyklon B case)TodorovićTodović and RaševićTorture Case[No Title]Main Legal IssuesThe Definition of Crimes Against HumanityVictims of Crimes Against HumanityThe Defence of NecessityThe Principle of Non-Retroactivity of a More Severe Criminal LawThe Legality PrincipleToyodaTrabzon Deportations and Massacres Trial.TwahirwaVV.van AnraatVasiljevićVelpke Baby Home Case.von Falkenhausen and Othersvon Falkenhorstvon Hagenbach[No Title]Main Legal Pointsvon Lewinskivon Schack and Kruskavon Weizsäcker and Others (Ministries case or the Wilhelmstrasse case)WW.Wagener and OthersWaller and DayWetzling and OthersWielen and 17 Others (The Stalag Luft III case)Wilhelm Strasse Case.WintgenWirzWülfing and K.YYamashitaTrialCommand ResponsibilityYozgat TrialZZardadZelenovićZeuss and Others (Natzweiler trial)ZimmermannZühlkeZyklon B Case.Further MaterialIndex
Part B Issues, Institutions, and Personalities, A, Aggression
In many ways, the concept of aggression belongs as much to international law (as a question of state responsibility) as it does to ICL (as an issue of individual criminal liability). On a conceptual level it would seem that the crime requires both individual conduct (on the part of the accused) and state conduct (on the part of the state on whose behalf the a ggressive war is planned or initiated). The combination of these two elements raises deep questions as to the degree to which aggression is to be found by criminal courts prosecuting individuals, or in the alternative, political institutions such as the SC categorizing the actions of states. The result is a crime whose exact definition is elusive, and whose application in concrete instances remains controversial, although its legal contours are in other ways well defined.
The historical root of aggression as an international crime begins in Nuremberg (see Nuremberg International Military Tribunal) with the prosecution of Nazi leaders for conspiracy to wage aggressive war. The crime itself was established by the London Agreement which included waging a war of aggression as one crime among the more general category of ‘crimes against peace’, including the ‘planning, preparation, initiation or waging’ of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties (Art. 6(a), IMT Charter). The latter description is important because it reveals that international law—not criminal law—provides the baseline against which an aggressive war will be defined. In criminal terms, this requirement of aggressive war can be thought of as a predicate requirement imported from international law. Today the predicate requirement is fulfilled by the UN Charter itself which outlaws aggressive war (Art. 2(4), UN Charter, outlawing the ‘use or threat of force’). The UN Charter’s prohibition on aggressive war as an international wrongful act is also assumed to codify existing customary international law.
Although the Nuremberg trials received critical scholarly attention—the nulla poena sine lege problem is still hotly contested—the UN GA nonetheless retrospectively recognized the basic principles of the Nuremberg Charter (UN GA Res. 95(I), 11 December 1946). There is consequently widespread agreement over the unlawfulness of aggression as an international wrongful act, even if its application by the IMTFE and IMT was controversial.
Despite these historical precedents, the crime of aggression was not included within the SC’s authorizing statutes for the ICTY and ICTR. This is notable since both wars in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda arguably contained elements of aggression. The crime was included in the ICCSt., although the ICC has no jurisdiction to prosecute the crime, according to Art. 5(2), until the parties of the Statute agree to a definition of the crime. This creates the somewhat unstable logical situation where the concept itself is recognized as a crime but there is no binding definition of it. It can therefore be said that aggression is a crime in search of a definition.
Nonetheless, there have been extensive attempts at defining it which provide some content and from which some agreement on the crime’s definition can be inferred, including a 1974 definition by the GA, a 1996 draft code by the ILC, and individual SC decisions defining particular military situations as acts of aggression. These attempts all indicate the difficulty of constructing a non-circular definition that state parties can agree to.
The 1974 definition includes a predictable recitation of the standard military forms of aggression: invasion, bombardment, blockade, and attacks by land, sea, or air. However, the contentious element of aggression is not the military means by which it is realized, but the criteria by which justifiable (p. 237) force is distinguished from military aggression. On this point the 1974 definition merely parrots the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States and the UN Charter itself. The 1974 definition also prohibits ‘[t]he sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein’ (UN GA Res. 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974). The ICJ in Nicaragua interpreted this provision to reflect customary international law (see Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (1986), 14 at § 195).
The ILC’s attempts at definition are equally problematic. The 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind simply states in Art. 16 that an ‘individual who, as leader or organizer, actively participates in or orders the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of aggression committed by a State shall be responsible for a crime of aggression’. Of course, the fact that Art. 16 refers to aggression indicates that the provision cannot serve as a non-circular definition of the crime. At its best, Art. 16 of the Draft Code can only establish individual criminal liability for the crime. But the definition remains elusive.
The SC has on a few occasions labelled individual military incursions as acts of aggression, and one might infer a definition of the crime by a close examination of these particular cases. SC Res. 573 vigorously condemned Israel for a ‘flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, international law, and norms of conduct’ after air strikes against Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) targets in a suburb of Tunis in 1985 violated the territorial integrity of Tunisia (UN SC Res. 573, 4 October 1985). SC Res. 573 also demanded that Israel refrain from similar acts of aggression in the future. Similarly, SC Res. 577 condemned South Africa for military incursions into Angola, calling these ‘flagrant’ violations ‘hostile and unprovoked acts of aggression’ committed by a ‘racist regime’ (UN SC Res. 577, 6 December 1985). The Resolution also demanded that South Africa withdraw all troops from Angolan territory. SC Res. 660 condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and ordered a military withdrawal, but strangely failed to use the term ‘aggression’ at all (UN SC Res. 660, 2 August 1990). Even SC Res. 662, passed by the SC one week later, declared the Iraqi annexation null and void and concluded that it had no legal validity, but once again failed to label the incursion as an ‘aggression’ (UN SC Res. 662, 9 August 1990). This is curious since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a sovereign neighbour, appears to be a paradigmatic and uncontroversial case of unprovoked aggression. This exposes the difficulty of inferring, through induction, a general definition of aggression based on individual instances where SC decisions have provided the world community with definitive legal answers as to what constitutes aggression in a few isolated cases. Although all of the Resolutions refer to the violation of territorial integrity, a more searching definition of aggression is difficult to construct based on isolated pronouncements.
It is nonetheless possible to construct the basic elements of the crime of aggression by drawing together the common characteristics of each source of law. Aggression includes traditional forms of military attack against the territorial integrity of another state, when not in self defence, such as invasions or bombardment by land, sea, or air. The sending of armed militia across the border may also constitute aggression, provided the incursion is significant enough to meet some threshold requirements. Where to locate that threshold is a difficult question of law application to fact. Furthermore, allowing the use of your territory for an armed attack by a militia against a third state may constitute aggression if there is reason to impute the militia’s activity to the state. In such a situation it is possible that a campaign of terrorism could be defined as aggression. It is unlikely that a lone individual engaging in an attack without state involvement could be guilty of aggression, since such an attack would be more likely defined simply as a crime of terrorism. Purely economic forms of power, such as an embargo, are not likely to be covered by any sensible definition of aggression, although a blockade may be included insofar as it is implemented with military assets and indirectly threatens territorial integrity.
For individual criminal liability, it is clear that general intent is required: the charged individual must have the intent to participate in the military aggression in some capacity (Göring and others, 1 Trial of the Major War Criminals, at 224–226). It is not necessary to demonstrate that the individual was aware or approved of all aspects of the aggressive war, but simply that the individual knew that he was participating in a war of aggression. The IMT convicted Nazi leaders on a charge of conspiracy to wage aggressive war on the theory that crimes against the peace are collective crimes that are, by definition, conspiratorial. However, the level of participation required remains unclear. When a state engages in a war of aggression, many individuals are ‘involved’ or Page Id: 237ReferencesDraft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind: Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its Forty-eighth Session, in 1996 (International Law Commission [ILC]) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.532 and Corr.1-3, (1996) II(2) UNYBILC 17, UN Doc A/51/10, 14Part 2 Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Art.16Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, Merits, ICJ GL No 70, [1986] ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986), 27th June 1986, International Court of Justice [ICJ] ICGJ(p. 238) ‘participate’ in some way in the aggression. Are they all criminally liable? Both military commanders and civilian leaders engage in planning or preparation for war and are clearly liable under the Nuremberg principles. However, Art. 6(a), IMT Charter criminalized not just planning and preparation but also waging aggressive war. Is every soldier in the armed forces therefore guilty of aggression as a bit player in the grand conspiracy? Probably not, but the bare language of the IMT Charter nonetheless suggests this possibility. Another intriguing possibility is whether a national court exercising universal jurisdiction could prosecute another state’s political leaders for the international crime of aggression. However, national courts have been extremely wary of wading into such political waters. A 2006 House of Lords decision in England recognized the crime of aggression in customary international law but concluded that it was not a crime under British law absent statutory enactment (R v. Jones, citing possible interference with the conduct of foreign affairs). Similarly, the German chief federal prosecutor declined to investigate US defence officials for the crime of preparing an aggressive war against Iraq. A few states have enacted aggression as a domestic crime, but none have ever prosecuted it.
There is also some debate in the scholarly literature over whether special intent is required for individual criminal liability. Glaser argued that the defendant must have the intent to pursue some aggressive purpose, such as territorial gain, occupation, or some other specific advantage. Under this view, a military incursion for the sole purpose of humanitarian intervention would not constitute aggression, nor would a military attack taken with the sincere but mistaken belief that the attack was required by the doctrine of self defence. In contrast, Cassese argued in 2003 that customary international law prohibits aggression regardless of motive, altruistic or otherwise, and that anything less would threaten international law’s fundamental value of preserving collective peace and security (Cassese, Int. Crim. Law at 115–116; he later changed his view, eventually sharing Glaser’s opinion: see A. Cassese, ‘On some Problematical Aspects of the Crime of Aggression’, 20 LJIL (2007) 841–849). However, it is important to note that aggression need not encompass the entire spectrum of unlawful use of force by states. It is, for example, logically consistent to determine that the military action of a state is unlawful according to the principles of international law, yet does not rise to the level of aggression, nor meet its specific criteria. This determination would be made without prejudice as to what sanctions international law might impose against a rogue state’s unlawful—yet not aggressive—actions. Individual criminal liability could then be reserved for cases of individual complicity with state action that pursued distinctively aggressive aims, as was clearly the case with the Nazis. This area of the law remains unsettled because there are no recent prosecutions of the crime, and the ICCSt. is silent on the question of special intent because the crime is not included in the ICC’s jurisdiction pending adoption of a definition in accordance with Art. 5(2).
The interplay between the collective and individual aspects of the crime (the former relating to state responsibility, the later to individual criminal liability), and who determines them, is similarly unsettled. The SC can label state actions ‘aggressive’ and order remedial measures in accordance with its Chapter VII powers (see Chapter VII Measures). If an international criminal tribunal is adjudicating a criminal charge of aggression against a particular individual, the first question is whether the action at the state level constituted aggression under the body of international law concerning state responsibility. Since the SC carries the highest level of enforcement authority in the modern system of international law, their findings on the matter would seem to be binding. Does this mean that an international criminal tribunal such as the ICC would be required to accept the SC finding without independent review? This suggests the unfortunate possibility that decisions as to an element of a criminal offence are decided in a non-judicial proceeding during which the accused enjoys none of the procedural protections of a legitimate criminal trial. This offends traditional principles of fairness and due process. However, there may be some rationale for this division of labour: the SC has greater institutional competence to decide questions of international law, while criminal tribunals have greater competence to judge individual conduct. The alternatives are that the tribunals show great deference to the SC determination or that they show no deference at all and engage in de novo review of matters pertaining to international law. The issue remains unresolved.
The dilemma brings to the forefront the distinctive nature of aggression as a hybrid notion of international and criminal law. Like genocide, aggression includes an irreducibly collective aspect, pursued at the level of states, defined and governed by the general principles of international law, and adjudicated by political institutions such as the SC. Yet aggression is a crime yielding not only ‘collective culpability’ but individual criminal responsibility as well, defined and governed by general principles of Page Id: 238ReferencesAgreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, and establishing the Charter of the International Military Tribunal 82 UNTS 279, UN Reg No II-251, EAS No 472, 59 Stat 1544, 3 Bevans 1238Annex The Nuremberg Charter, II Jurisdiction and General Principles, Art.6(a)R. v Jones (Margaret) and ors, Appeal judgment, [2006] UKHL 16, ILDC 380 (UK 2006), [2007] 1 AC 136, [2007] 2 WLR 772, [2006] 2 All ER 741, [2006] 2 Cr App R 9, (2002) 2 CAR 128, 29th March 2006, House of Lords [HL] ILDCRome Statute of the International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court [ICC]) 2187 UNTS 3, UN Doc A/CONF.183/9, UN Reg No I-38544Part 2 Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law, Art.5(2)(p. 239) criminal law, and tried by criminal tribunals devoted to individual punishment.
S. Glaser, ‘Quelques remarques sur la définition de l’agression en droit international pénal’, Festschrift für Theodor Rittler (1957) 388–393.I. Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963) 185–194.J.A. Bush, ‘“The Supreme … Crime” and Its Origins: The Lost Legislative History of the Crime of Aggressive War’, 102 Columbia Law Review (2002) 2324.Cassese, Int. Crim. Law, 110–117.G. Gaja, ‘The Long Journey towards Repressing Aggression’, Cassese et al., ICC Commentary, I, 427–441.C. Kress, ‘The German Chief Federal Prosecutor’s Decision not to Investigate the Alleged Crime of Preparing Aggression Against Iraq’, 2 JICJ (2004) 245.C. Villarino Villa, ‘The Crime of Aggression before the House of Lords’, 4 JICJ (2006) 866.
Page Id: 239ReferencesLašva Valley, Prosecutor v Furundžija (Anto), Appeal judgment, Case No IT-95-17/1-A, ICL 11 (ICTY 2000), 21st July 2000, Appeals Chamber (ICTY) ICLLašva Valley, Prosecutor v Furundžija (Anto), Trial judgment, Case No IT-95-17/1-T, ICL 17 (ICTY 1998), [1998] ICTY 3, (1999) 38 ILM 317, (2002) 21 ILR 213, 10th December 1998, Trial Chamber II (ICTY) ICLProsecutor v Akayesu (Jean-Paul), Judgment, Case No ICTR-96-4-A, 1st June 2001, Appeals Chamber (ICTR)Prosecutor v Akayesu (Jean-Paul), Trial judgment, Case No ICTR-96-4-T, ICL 90 (ICTR 1998), [1998] ICTR 44, (1998) 37 ILM 1399, (1998) 9 IHRR 608, 2nd September 1998, Trial Chamber I (ICTR) ICLProsecutor v Musema (Alfred), Appeal judgment, Case No ICTR-96-13-A, 16th November 2001, Appeals Chamber (ICTR)Prosecutor v Musema (Alfred), Judgment and sentence, Case No ICTR-96-13-A, [2000] ICTR 1, 27th January 2000, Trial Chamber I (ICTR)Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court [ICC]) 2187 UNTS 3, UN Doc A/CONF.183/9, UN Reg No I-38544Part 3 General Principles of Criminal Law, Art.25(3)(c)Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (as amended) (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR]) UN Doc S/RES/955(1994), AnnexArt.6(1)Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (as amended) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [ICTY]) UN Doc S/RES/827(1993), Annex, UN Doc S/25704, Annex, SCOR 48th Year 29Art.7(1)