Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314

message: I do not agree with the language used in this article. Careful examination of the Nicaragua Case shows that at least Article 3(g) of the Definition is codifying international customary law, thereby also reflecting binding law and it becomes, as a result of the codification binding. - Jorik12 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you document that? If so, it might be worth adding to the article. -- ChrisO 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory,
But all these were also perpetrated by the Allies (USSR, US, UK, etc.) against Germany in the second part of WW2!. It is absurd to call it "aggression by the Allies", and yet it was, according to this definition. Therefore, the definition is wrong. What is missing is a qualifier like "innitiating", "unprovoked" and such.--AlexL 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. Read the article carefully! "The definition's distinction between an act of aggression and a war of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression." In the case of the Allies, our attacks on Germany were acts of aggression, but they would have been legal because they were part of a defensive war; Germany's acts of aggression against its neighbours would have been illegal, because they were part of an unprovoked war of conquest. -- ChrisO 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any attack, bombardment, etc. is an act of aggression? 

message: This article is currently titled Aggression (war crime), even though it deals almost exclusively with UNGA Resolution 3314.
I see no reason why there should be two separate articles called Aggression (war crime) and War of aggression, so I'm renaming this article United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314, and redirecting Aggression (war crime) to War of aggression.  Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading title

message: I removed a paragraph from the "criticism of" sections.  I've pasted it in below, and suggest that if one feels strongly enough about the language used that it be put back in the article, but under the heading "criticism of people who use or cite the definition."
What I removed from the article:
"Although the Definition of Aggression has often been cited by opponents of conflicts such as the 1999 Kosovo War and the 2003 Iraq War, it has no binding force in international law. The doctrine of Nulla poena sine lege means that, in the absence of binding international law on the subject of aggression, no penalty exists for committing acts in contravention of the definition. It is only recently that heads of state have been indicted over acts committed in wartime, in the cases of Slobodan Milošević of Serbia and Charles Taylor of Liberia. However, both were charged with war crimes, i.e. violations of the laws of war, rather than with the broader offence of "a crime against international peace" as envisaged by the Definition of Aggression."
This is clearly a criticism of those who use the definition.  The author seeks to point out it's non-binding character.  In addition the bit about nulla poena sine lege, definitely needs to be rewritten if it is to go back into the article.  The way it is above it makes it sound as though the principle itself has something to do with international law or even aggression specifically.  Probalby the author meant something more like - "given the principle of nulla poena sine lege, which means no punishment without law, it is the case that no penalty can be applied to those guilty of aggression, because it is not real international law."  Itself a pretty controversial statement, but at least coherent [if badly worded, sorry!].  Again and at any rate, this is a criticism of those who use the definition, not of the definition itself.  
The author also strangely omits reference to Nuremberg with the statement that "only recently . . ."  I don't understand this: maybe better is "only recently has the Nuremberg model been revived"?  At Nuremberg of course, heads of state were tried and convicted for the crime of aggression, among other things, making the statement in the original paragraph even stranger.
I don't think it's appropriate to have a criticism of people who use the definition, but if others think it is, then fix this paragraph and stick it back in - but please under a section heading that makes its purpose clear.
pete212 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of people who use/cite the definition of aggression 

message: i am going to wikisource this.
James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikisource 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120917142317/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement
*Added  tag to http://www.un.org/law.
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070515005722/http://www.icj-cij.org:80/ to http://www.icj-cij.org/.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified