Ukrainian Criminal Code
Article 437 Planning, Preparation and Waging of an Aggressive War
(1) Planning, preparation or waging of an aggressive war or armed conflict, or conspiring for any such purposes – shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of seven to twelve years.
(2) Conducting an aggressive war or aggressive military operations – shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of ten to fifteen years.
On 17-18 June 2016: representatives of ICC States Parties, civil society and academia met at Princeton University for a seminar on the activation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression. 
Denkschrift
zum Gesetz zu den Änderungen vom 10. und 11. Juni 2010 des Römischen
Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs vom 17. Juli 1998
Explanatory Memorandum
to the Act regarding the Amendments of 10 and 11 June 2010
to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998
[…]
INFORME JURIDICO
“APROBACIÓN DE LAS ENMIENDAS AL ESTATUTO DE ROMA
DE LA CORTE PENAL INTERNACIONAL RELATIVAS
AL CRIMEN DE AGRESIÓN Y AL ARTÍCULO 8”
EXPEDIENTE Nº 18.514
I.- RESUMEN DEL PROYECTO
El proyecto de ley propone la “Aprobación de las Enmiendas al Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional relativas al Crimen de Agresión y al Artículo 8”.
Estas enmiendas son producto de la primera Conferencia de Revisión del Estatuto de Roma, la cual se llevó a cabo en Kampala, Uganda, del 31 de mayo al 11 de junio de 2010. Las mismas se adoptaron por consenso y versan sobre el Artículo 8 “Crímenes de Guerra”, incorporan la definición del “Crimen de Agresión” y las condiciones conforme a las cuales la Corte ejercerá competencia sobre este último.
Tal y como lo señala la Exposición de Motivos, las enmiendas perfeccionan y completan el Estatuto de Roma, de manera que la Corte Penal Internacional podrá enjuiciar a los autores del delito de agresión en función de una sólida base jurídica creada por la voluntad común de los estados.
Finalmente, el Poder Ejecutivo expresa que las presentes enmiendas son conformes con nuestra política exterior en materia de protección de Derechos Humanos y respeto al Estado de Derecho, ejes básicos por los que Costa Rica es reconocida a nivel internacional, así como con nuestro ya tradicional liderazgo en temas que buscan el fortalecimiento de la Corte Penal Internacional.
[…]
PROYECTO DE LEY
“APROBACIÓN DE LAS ENMIENDAS AL ESTATUTO DE ROMA
DE LA CORTE PENAL INTERNACIONAL RELATIVAS AL
CRIMEN DE AGRESIÓN Y AL ARTÍCULO 8”
Expediente N.º 18.514
ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA:
El Estatuto de Roma fue adoptado el 17 de julio de 1998, por la Conferencia de Plenipotenciarios que al efecto convocó la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU).
Costa Rica realizó el correspondiente depósito del instrumento de ratificación ante el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas el 7 de junio del 2001.
Dicho Estatuto estableció la Corte Penal Internacional, órgano jurisdiccional penal autónomo permanente y de carácter internacional, destinado a hacer efectivas las responsabilidades penales individuales de los autores de determinados y graves delitos internacionales, impidiendo la impunidad cuando los Estados no hayan cumplido con su deber de perseguir y castigar a los autores de dichos crímenes. La Corte también constituye un instrumento importante para la atención de las víctimas de estos delitos.
[…]
Workshop on the Ratification and Implementation of the Rome Statute Amendments on the Crime of Aggression
Monday, 25 June 2012
Programme
(Lester Pollack Colloquium at New York University, 245 Sullivan Street, Manhattan, NY 10012)
[…]
The Sierra Leone Institute of International Law with support from Commonwealth Secretariat at the conclusion of its three day workshop on the topic: Promoting the implementation of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal court and the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression, held at 57 John Street, Freetown from the 12 to July 2012 with stake holders made teh following recommendations for the consideration and action of Government, Civil Society, Media and the Sierra Leone Bar Association:
[…]
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am proud to open this panel today, which is dedicated to “Preventing the illegal use of force through judicial accountability – the role of the ICC and States Parties after the adoption of the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression”. For Liechtenstein, this brings together two of the top priorities in our multilateral work: First, the United Nations, the very purpose of which is to promote international peace and security. Its Charter contains the most important rule of international law: the prohibition of the illegal use of force. Second, the rule of law, the theme of the high-level meeting today, and in particular the role of the International Criminal Court in this respect. While aggression is prohibited under the UN Charter and thus has been illegal under international law for decades, we have so far not been able to use individual criminal justice to enforce the prohibition of the illegal use of force. In Nuremberg, some 65 years ago, twelve leading Nazi officers were convicted of “crimes against peace”. Since then, no other international criminal tribunal has had the competence to hold individuals accountable for the crime of aggression. We did not even have an internationally accepted definition of the crime of aggression. Instead, we had more wars, more aggression, and impunity.
[…]
Today at the UN Headquarters in New York, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, H.E. Mr Jean Asselborn deposited the instruments of ratification of the amendments to the Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted by the Kampala Review Conference on 10 and 11 June 2010 with the Legal Counsel of the United Nations and Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Ms Patricia O’Brien.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court held six meetings on 9, 10, 11 and 13 February 2009. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) served as Chair of the Special Working Group.
2. The Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties provided the substantive servicing for the Group.
3. The discussions in the Group were held on the basis of three papers submitted by the Chairman: a revised discussion paper (“2009 Chairman’s paper”); 1 a “Non-paper on other substantive issues regarding aggression to be addressed by the Review Conference”; 2 and an informal note on the work programme.3 At the first meeting of the Group, the Chairman introduced all three documents. He recalled that the Group was open to participation by all States on an equal footing, and encouraged delegations to comment in particular on issues that had not been thoroughly discussed in recent sessions. The Chairman further recalled that, in accordance with resolution ICC-ASP/7/Res.3, this was the final session of the Group, but not the final opportunity to discuss the crime of aggression. After the conclusion of the work of the Special Working Group, discussions would continue in the framework of the preparations of the Review Conference and possibly at the Review Conference itself.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court held five meetings on 17, 18, 19 and 20 November 2008. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) served as Chair of the Special Working Group (hereinafter “the Group”).
2. The Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties provided the substantive servicing for the Group.
3. The discussions in the Group were continued on the basis of the revised discussion paper proposed by the Chairman (2008 Chairman’s paper).1 Furthermore, the Chairman submitted an informal note on the work programme, outlining a suggested structure as well as questions for discussions.
4. At the first meeting of the Group, the Chairman introduced the informal note on the work programme. He recalled that the Group was open to participation by all States on an equal footing, and encouraged delegations to comment in particular on issues that have not been thoroughly discussed in recent sessions, as outlined in the note on the work programme.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court held seven meetings on 2, 3, 4 and 6 June 2008. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) served as Chair of the Special Working Group.
2. The Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties provided the substantive servicing for the Group.
3. The discussions in the Special Working Group were held on the basis of the revised discussion paper proposed by the Chairman (“2008 Chairman’s paper”).1 The revised discussion paper was submitted following the discussions held by the Special Working Group during the sixth session of the Assembly of States Parties (30 November to 14 December 2007). It is based on the previous discussion paper (“2007 Chairman’s paper”)2 and reflects the progress made since.
4. At the first meeting of the Special Working Group, the Chairman introduced the 2008 Chairman’s paper. He recalled that the Group was open to participation by all States on an equal footing, and encouraged an interactive discussion. Delegations were especially encouraged to comment on issues that had not been thoroughly discussed in recent sessions. These included the procedure for entry into force of amendments on aggression; the suggested deletion of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Statute; the application of article 28 of the Statute to the crime of aggression; the suggested inclusion of the text of United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) as an annex to the Rome Statute; and the Elements of Crimes. While the Chairman drew particular attention to these issues, delegations were invited to comment on all the substantive issues addressed in the 2008 Chairman’s paper.
5. Delegations welcomed the progress made by the Group since the sixth session of the Assembly of States Parties in 2007. The 2008 Chairman’s paper was considered a sound basis for further discussion.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court held six meetings on 29, 30, 31 January and 1 February 2007. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) served as Chair of the Special Working Group.
2. The Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties provided the substantive servicing for the Group.
3. The Special Working Group had before it a revised discussion paper1 prepared by the Chairman (hereinafter “Chairman’s paper”) as a reflection of the discussions held over the past years, including at the informal inter-sessional meetings of the Group held at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University.
4. At the first meeting of the Group, the Chairman introduced the revised discussion paper, replacing the 2002 Coordinator’s paper. He noted that the paper had been prepared in light of the progress made at Princeton, without excluding options reflecting views that may not necessarily have broad support. The Chairman also recalled that the Special Working Group had decided to conclude its work 12 months prior to the Review Conference. He indicated that the Group was entering a new phase in its work and that further discussions should be aimed at narrowing existing differences of opinion. Delegations were invited to present their views on the substantive parts of the revised discussion paper while leaving aside issues related to the elements of crime which were included for reference purposes only.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court held three meetings on 30 November and 1 December 2005. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser served as Chairperson of the Special Working Group.
2. The Secretariat of the Assembly of States Parties provided the substantive servicing for the Group.
3. The Special Working Group had before it the outcome of an informal intersessional meeting held in Princeton, New Jersey, United States, from 13 to 15 June 2005 contained indocument ICC-ASP/4/SWGCA/INF.1. At the first meeting of the Group, the Chairperson presented an overview of the report of the intersessional meeting. In doing so, he expressed his regret that the delegation of Cuba had again, despite representations both by himself and by the President of the Assembly, been denied a travel permit by the host State and had therefore been unable to attend the informal intersessional meeting in Princeton. The Chairperson pointed out that the intersessional had again been held in English only, as had the intersessional meetings held in Syracuse, Sicily, in preparation for the Rome Conference. He expressed his willingness to arrange for translation services, if delegations had a very strong preference in this respect, but also made it clear that such arrangements would lead to a huge increase in the total costs of the meetings and that it would be difficult to secure the relevant funding. He requested the Special Working Group to adopt the report and use it as the basis for future discussions on the crime of aggression. In view of the limited time allocated to the question of the crime of aggression during the fourth session of the Assembly of States Parties, he emphasized the need for further intersessional meetings in the future, complemented by a significant increase in meeting time in the framework of the Assembly of States Parties. The Chairperson expressed his understanding of the fact that the agenda of the Assembly was overloaded yet again. However, he also mentioned that the decision taken by the Assembly at its third session on meeting time allocated to the Special Working Group had not been implemented. The Chairperson also expressed the view that the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression needed to establish a “road map” clearly outlining the process that could enable the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression to conclude its work successfully at least 12 months before the convening of the Review Conference. It was essential to make a reliable decision on meeting time allocated to the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression between 2006 and 2008.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Assembly of States Parties and at the invitation of the Government of Liechtenstein, an informal inter-sessional meeting on the Crime of Aggression was hosted by the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, on the premises of the Princeton Club, New York, United States of America, from 8 to 10 June 2009. Invitations to participate in the meeting had been sent to all States, as well as to representatives of civil society. H.R.H. Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan) chaired the meeting.
2. The participants in the informal inter-sessional meeting expressed their appreciation to the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland for the financial support they had provided for the meeting and to the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University for hosting the event and the financial support.
3. The participants noted with appreciation that the meeting was held on the premises of the Princeton Club in New York, thereby enabling the presence of delegations that had in the past been denied permission to travel to Princeton to attend previous inter-sessional meetings of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression (hereinafter “the Group”).
4. The present document does not necessarily represent the views of the governments that the participants represent. It seeks to reflect the opinions expressed on various issues pertaining to the crime of aggression on the basis of the proposals for a provision on aggression elaborated by the Group and adopted on 13 February 2009.1 It is hoped that the material in the present report will facilitate the future work of the Assembly of States Parties on the crime of aggression, in particular during the upcoming eighth session, to be held in The Hague from 18 to 26 November 2009.
5. The discussions were held on the basis of two papers submitted by the Chairman: a non-paper on the Elements of Crimes2, as well as a non-paper on the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction.3 The Chairman introduced both non-papers and recalled the significant progress that had been made by the Group, culminating in the adoption of the Group’s final report in February 2009. He underlined that the future work on aggression should focus on the outstanding issues left over from the Group, as well as the Elements of Crimes. The Chairman furthermore noted that the participation of both States Parties and non-States Parties was essential, despite the fact that the Group no longer existed as such. The future format of the work on aggression would have to be decided by the Assembly of States Parties at its next session.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Assembly of States Parties and at the invitation of the Government of Liechtenstein, an informal inter-sessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression was held at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self- Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States of America, from 11 to 14 June 2007. Invitations to participate in the meeting had been sent to all States, as well as to representatives of civil society. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) chaired the meeting.
2. The participants in the informal inter-sessional meeting expressed their appreciation to the Governments of Finland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland for the financial support they had provided for the meeting and to the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University for hosting and giving financial support for the event.
3. The meeting noted with regret that the delegations of Cuba and the Islamic Republic of Iran had been denied permission to travel to Princeton to attend the meeting, in spite of efforts by the President of the Assembly and the Chair of the Special Working Group.
4. The present document does not necessarily represent the views of the governments that the participants represent. It seeks to reflect the opinions expressed on various issues pertaining to the crime of aggression and to set out the conclusions reached. It is understood that these issues will have to be reassessed in light of further work on the crime of aggression. It is hoped that the material in the present report will facilitate the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression.
[…]
General policy statement
The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Amendment to the Statute of Rome 1998, pertaining to the crime of aggression, as adopted in Resolution 6 of the ReviewConference of the States Parties in Kampala, 11 June 2010.
Implementation by New Zealand is to be achieved through this Bill in the following ways:
1 to ensure that the use of armed force by New Zealand is always in conformity with international law and in particular the UN Charter; and to protect New Zealand leaders from external pressure to commit the New Zealand Defence Force to any illegal action overseas:
2 to ensure that no leader of another State uses armed force against New Zealand with impunity.
To that end, this Bill—
(a) requires that New Zealand observe its binding obligation under the UN Charter not to commit an act of aggression:
(b) makes it a criminal offence in New Zealand law for any New Zealand leader to commit an act of aggression:
(c) requires a New Zealand leader to obtain the written advice of the Attorney-General before deciding to engage the armed forces of New Zealand in action involving the use of force:
(d) makes it a criminal offence in New Zealand law for any leader of any other State to commit aggression against New Zealand:
(e) recognises that NewZealand or any other State may engage in the use of armed force, under the UN Charter, in exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence or in any other manner properly authorised by the Security Council of the United Nations.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Assembly of States Parties and at the invitation of the Government of Liechtenstein, an informal inter-sessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression was held at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self- Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States of America, from 8 to 11 June 2006. Invitations to participate in the meeting had been sent to all States, as well as to representatives of civil society. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) chaired the meeting. The annotated agenda of the meeting is contained in annex III.
2. The participants in the informal inter-sessional meeting expressed their appreciation to the Governments of Canada, Finland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland for the financial support they had provided for the meeting and to the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University for hosting and giving financial support for the event.
3. The participants observed a minute of silence in memory of Dr. Medard Rwelamira, the late Secretary of the Assembly of States Parties, who passed away on 3 April 2006. The Chairman paid tribute to the outstanding assistance provided to the Special Working Group by Dr. Rwelamira, who had been a dear colleague and close friend of many delegates.
4. The meeting noted with regret that the delegation of Cuba had, once more, been denied permission to travel to Princeton to attend the meeting, in spite of efforts by the President of the Assembly and the Chair of the Special Working Group.
5. The present document does not necessarily represent the views of the governments that the participants represent. It seeks to reflect the opinions expressed on various issues pertaining to the crime of aggression and to set out the conclusions reached. It is understood that these issues will have to be reassessed in light of further work on the crime of aggression. It is hoped that the material in the present document will facilitate the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression.
[…]
I. Introduction
1. At the invitation of the Government of Liechtenstein and pursuant to a recommendation by the Assembly of States Parties, an informal inter-sessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression was held at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, New Jersey, United States, from 13 to 15 June 2005. Invitations to participate in the meeting had been sent to all States as well as to representatives of civil society. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) chaired the meeting. The agenda of the meeting is contained in annex II.
2. The participants in the informal inter-sessional meeting expressed their appreciation to the Governments of Germany, Finland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and Switzerland for the financial support they had provided for the meeting and to the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University for hosting the event.
3. The present document does not necessarily represent the views of the Governments that the participants represent. It seeks to reflect conclusions and opinions regarding different issues pertaining to the crime of aggression; and it is understood that these issues will have to be reassessed in light of further work on the crime of aggression. It is hoped that the material in the present document will facilitate the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression.
[…]
1. At the invitation of the Government of Liechtenstein, and after consultation within the framework of the Assembly of States Parties, an inter-sessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression was held at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, at Princeton University, New Jersey, United States, from 21 to 23 June 2004. Invitations to participate in the meeting had been sent to all States who have signed the Final Act of the Rome Conference as well as to some representatives of civil society. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser (Liechtenstein) chaired the meeting. A list of participants is included as annex II.
2. The agenda for the meeting was based on the preliminary list of possible issues relating to the crime of aggression contained in document PCNICC/2001/L.1/Rev.1. As a result of the discussions, this list was revised in order to reflect progress made since the preliminary list of issues had been drafted. The revised list of issues is included as annex I of the report.
3. The participants in the inter-sessional meeting expressed their appreciation to the Governments of Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and Switzerland, which had provided financial support for the meeting, as well as to the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University for providing an opportunity for an informal exchange of views and dialogue among the participants and for its generous hospitality. The group expressed its hope that the Assembly of States Parties, if possible, may make provision for other such meetings, with the necessary arrangements in order to facilitate the debate in the different working languages of the Assembly.
4. The present document does not necessarily represent the views of the Governments of the participants. It seeks to reflect conclusions and opinions regarding different issues on the crime of aggression; it is understood that these issues would have to be reassessed in light of further work on the crime of aggression. It is hoped that the material in the present document would facilitate the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression.
[…]
The Assembly of States Parties,
Recalling paragraph 2 of article 5 of the Rome Statute,
Recalling also paragraph 7 of resolution F, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998,
Desirous of continuing and completing the work on the crime of aggression,
1. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression;1
2. Decides to establish a special working group on the crime of aggression, open on an equal footing to all States Members of the United Nations or members of specialized agencies or of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for the purpose of elaborating proposals for a provision on aggression in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 5 of the Statute and paragraph 7 of resolution F adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998;
3. Decides also that the special working group shall submit such proposals to the Assembly for its consideration at a Review Conference, with a view to arriving at an acceptable provision on the crime of aggression for inclusion in the Statute in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Statute;
4. Decides further that the special working group shall meet during the regular sessions of the Assembly or at any other time that the Assembly deems appropriate and feasible;
5. Requests the Bureau of the Assembly to prepare a proposal for the meetings of the special working group and to submit the proposal, with its budgetary implications, at the earliest possible session with a view to holding the first meeting of the special working group in 2003.
Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its forty-eighth session, in 1996, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (at para. 50). The report, which also contains commentaries on the draft articles, appears in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1996, vol. II (Part Two).
[…]
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East is now in session.
THE PRESIDENT: All of the accused are present except HIRANUMA, SHIRATORI and UMEZU. The Sugamo prison surgeon certifies that they are ill and unable to attend the trial today. The certificates will be recorded and filed.
CLERK OF THE COURT: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE, THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, INDIA, AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES.
AGAINST
ARAKI, Sadao, DOHIHARA, Kenji, HASHIMOTO, Kingoro, HATA, Shunroku, HIMANUMA, Kiichiro, HIROTA, Koki, HOSHINO, Kaoki, ITAGAKI, Seishiro, KAYA, Okinori, KIDO, Koichi, KIKURA, Heitaro, KOISO, Kuniaki, MATSUI, Iwane, MATSUOKA, Yosuke, MINAMI, Jiro, MUTO, Akira, MAGANO, Osami, OKA, Takasumi, OKAWA, Shumei, OSHIMA, Hiroshi, SATO, Kenryo, SHIGEMITSU Mamoru, SHIMADA, Shigetaro, SHIRATORI, Toshio, SUZUKI, Teiichi- TOGO. Shigenori, TOJO, Hideki, OMEZU, Yoshijiro JUDGMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
{48,415}
FOR THE FAR EAST.
THE PRESIDENT: I will now read the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The title and formal parts will not be read.
[…]
Affirmation of the Principles of International Law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal
[…]
[…]
Primarily, this report undertakes to describe the creation, organization, and functioning of the Office, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (OCCWC). The need for such an agency was envisaged by the Theater Judge Advocate (the late Brig. Gen. Edward C. Betts) and the Director of the Legal Division of OMGUS (then Mr. Charles Fahy) in October 1945. The OCCWC was officially established on 24 October 1946, shortly after rendition of the judgment in the first Nuernberg trial before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), and was formally deactivated on 20 June 1949. This report covers the entire period from October 1945to June 1949.
The basic policies which governed the operations of OCCWC were in part prescribed by higher authority-through OMGUS and the Department of the Army-and in part determined by me as Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. The evolution and execution of these policies are sketched herein. Throughout, principal attention has been devoted to the “executive” and “administrative” operations of the OCCWC, including such matters as the preparation of Military Government Ordinance No. 7 (under which the Nuernberg Military Tribunals were constituted), selection of defendants, methods of interrogation of witnesses and suspects, handling of linguistic problems, and cooperation with other governments in the field of war crimes.
These things may seem of minor importance and prove of little interest to those who are chiefly interested in the actual outcome of the trials, the legal reasoning of the judgments, the historical revelations of the documents and testimony, or the immediate and long-term significance of the trials in world affairs. I have touched on some of the legal and historical features of the trials toward the end of the report, and have dealt with them more fully in the April 1949 issue of International Conciliation (attached hereto as Appendix B). In any event, on such subjects there will be no lack of books and articles in the years to come; indeed the Nuernberg bibliography is already sufficiently impressive. Glamorless as this description of the Nuernberg “machinery” may be, it wants writing. There is more to a judicial process than the records and judgments in the decided cases. The Nuernberg trials were carried out under quadripartite authority, but in pursuit of objectives thought to be of benefit to all mankind. It is important, therefore, not only that the documents, testimony, and judgments be widely published, but also that a record be left telling how the individual defend- ants were selected, who prosecuted and who defended them, and how the charges were drawn, and describing the administrative paraphernalia of the Nuernberg process. This report is an attempt to supply that record, and no effort has been made to “jazz up” the account for the general reader.
[…]
ARTICLE 10.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
ARTICLE 11.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council.
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
[…]
[…]
Aggression
Article 103
(1) An official or other person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of the state, who plans, prepares, initiates or executes an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations, shall be sentenced to at least fifteen years in prison.
(2) An act of aggression means the use of armed force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall qualify as an act of aggression:
1) invasion of or an armed attack on the territory, sea, aircrafts, ports or vessels of another state, or any military occupation, temporary or permanent, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another state or part thereof;
2) bombardment of or the use of any weapons against the territory of another state;
3) blockade of the ports or coasts of another state;
4) the use of armed forces of one state which are within the territory of another state with the agreement of the receiving state, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
5) the action of the Republic of Slovenia in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another state, to be used by that other state for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third state;
6) the sending of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above.
[…]
[…]
Art. 136quinquies. (L. 27 février 2012) (1) Est qualifié de crime d’agression la planification, la préparation, le lancement ou l’exécution par une personne effectivement en mesure de contrôler ou de diriger l’action politique ou militaire d’un Etat, d’un acte d’agression qui, par sa nature, sa gravité et son ampleur, constitue une violation manifeste de la Charte des Nations Unies.
Aux fins de l’alinéa 1er, on entend par «acte d’agression» l’emploi par un Etat de la force armée contre la souveraineté, l’intégrité territoriale ou l’indépendance politique d’un autre Etat, ou de toute autre manière incompatible avec la Charte des Nations Unies.
Il s’agit des actes suivants:
a) l’invasion ou l’attaque par les forces armées d’un Etat du territoire d’un autre Etat ou l’occupation militaire, même temporaire, résultant d’une telle invasion ou d’une telle attaque, ou l’annexion par la force de la totalité ou d’une partie du territoire d’un autre Etat;
b) le bombardement par les forces armées d’un Etat du territoire d’un autre Etat, ou l’utilisation d’une arme quelconque par un Etat contre le territoire d’un autre Etat;
c) le blocus des ports ou des côtes d’un Etat par les forces armées d’un autre Etat;
d) l’attaque par les forces armées d’un Etat des forces terrestres, maritimes ou aériennes, ou des flottes aériennes et maritimes d’un autre Etat;
e) l’emploi des forces armées d’un Etat qui se trouvent dans le territoire d’un autre Etat avec l’agrément de celui-ci en contravention avec les conditions fixées dans l’accord pertinent, ou la prolongation de la présence de ces forces sur ce territoire après l’échéance de l’accord pertinent;
f) le fait pour un Etat de permettre que son territoire, qu’il a mis à la disposition d’un autre Etat, serve à la commission par cet autre Etat d’un acte d’agression contre un Etat tiers;
g) l’envoi par un Etat ou au nom d’un Etat de bandes, groupes, troupes irrégulières ou mercenaires armés qui exécutent contre un autre Etat des actes assimilables à ceux de forces armées d’une gravité égale à celle des actes énumérés ci-dessus, ou qui apportent un concours substantiel à de tels actes.
(2) Les infractions énumérées au paragraphe (1) sont punies de la réclusion de dix à quinze ans.
Relevant national provisions in the original language as well as in English translation:
Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia passed by Croatian Parliament at its session on September 19, 1997, entered into force on January 1, 1998
[…]
Legislative sample for Members of Parliaments to “domesticate” the crime of aggression (adopted by the Kampala Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the ICC, 11 June 2010) based on the Commonwealth Model Law to Implement the Rome Statute of the ICC (PGA was invited by the CW Secretariat to produce research and input for the revision of the CW Model Law in 2011) and on provisions included in the draft legislation tabled by Dr. Kennedy Graham, MP (Member of PGA), in the New Zealand Parliament entitled the “International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill 2009”.
[…]
The Russian language version of resolution RC/Res.6 on the Crime of Aggression
A chinese version of resolution RC/Res.6 on the Crime fo Aggression.
Arabic version of resolution RC/Res.6 on the Crime of Aggression
La Conferencia de Revisión,
Recordando el párrafo 1 del artículo 12 del Estatuto de Roma,
Recordando el párrafo 2 del artículo 5 del Estatuto de Roma,
Recordando también el párrafo 7 de la resolución F aprobada el 17 de julio de 1998 por la Conferencia Diplomática de Plenipotenciarios de las Naciones Unidas sobre el establecimiento de una Corte Penal Internacional,
Recordando asimismo la resolución ICC-ASP/1/Res.1 sobre la continuación del trabajo relativo al crimen de agresión y expresando su reconocimiento al Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre el crimen de agresión por haber elaborado propuestas sobre una disposición relativa al crimen de agresión,
Tomando nota de la resolución ICC-ASP/8/Res.6, mediante la cual la Asamblea de los Estados Partes remitió propuestas a la Conferencia de Revisión sobre una disposición relativa al crimen de agresión para su examen,
Resuelta a activar la competencia de la Corte respecto del crimen de agresión a la mayor brevedad posible,
1. Decide aprobar, de conformidad con el párrafo 2 del artículo 5 del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (en adelante el “Estatuto”), las enmiendas del Estatuto que figuran en el anexo I de la presente resolución, que estarán sujetas a ratificación o aceptación y entrarán en vigor de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el párrafo 5 del artículo 121 del Estatuto; y señala que cualquier Estado Parte podrá depositar una declaración como establece el artículo 15 bis antes de la ratificación o aceptación;
2. Decide además aprobar las enmiendas a los elementos de los crímenes que figuran en el anexo II de la presente resolución;
3. Decide además aprobar los entendimientos respecto de la interpretación de las enmiendas mencionadas, contenidos en el anexo III de la presente resolución;
4 Decide asimismo revisar las enmiendas relativas al crimen de agresión siete años después del inicio del ejercicio de la competencia de la Corte;
5. Exhorta a todos los Estados Partes a que ratifiquen o acepten las enmiendas contenidas en el anexo I.
[…]
La Conférence de révision,
Rappelant le paragraphe 1 de l’article 12 du Statut de Rome,
Rappelant le paragraphe 2 de l’article 5 du Statut de Rome,
Rappelant également le paragraphe 7 de la résolution F, adoptée le 17 juillet 1998 par la Conférence diplomatique de plénipotentiaires des Nations Unies sur la création d’une Cour criminelle internationale,
Rappelant en outre la résolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.1 relative à la poursuite des travaux concernant le crime d’agression et exprimant ses remerciements au Groupe de travail spécial sur le crime d’agression pour avoir élaboré des propositions concernant une disposition relative au crime d’agression,
Prenant note de la résolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.6, par laquelle l’Assemblée des États Parties a transmis à la Conférence de révision pour examen une disposition relative au crime d’agression,
Résolue à déclencher la compétence de la Cour à l’égard du crime d’agression aussitôt que possible,
1. Décide d’adopter, conformément à l’article 5, paragraphe 2, du Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale (ci-après dénommé le «Statut») les amendements au Statut figurant à l’annexe I de la présente résolution, qui sont sujets à ratification ou à acceptation et entreront en vigueur conformément à l’article 121, paragraphe 5 ; et note que tout État Partie peut déposer une déclaration prévue à l’article 15 bis avant ratification ou acceptation ;
2. Décide également d’adopter les amendements aux Éléments des crimes figurant à l’annexe II à la présente résolution ;
3. Décide également d’adopter les éléments d’interprétation des amendements susmentionnés figurant à l’annexe III de la présente résolution ;
4. Décide en outre de réexaminer les amendements relatifs au crime d’agression sept ans après le commencement par la Cour de l’exercice de sa compétence ;
5. Demande à tous les États Partie de ratifier ou d’accepter les amendements figurant à l’annexe I.
[…]
The Review Conference,
Recalling paragraph 1 of article 12 of the Rome Statute,
Recalling paragraph 2 of article 5 of the Rome Statute,
Recalling also paragraph 7 of resolution F, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998,
Recalling further resolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.1 on the continuity of work in respect of the crime of aggression, and expressing its appreciation to the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression for having elaborated proposals on a provision on the crime of aggression,
Taking note of resolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.6, by which the Assembly of States Parties forwarded proposals on a provision on the crime of aggression to the Review Conference for its consideration,
Resolved to activate the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression as early as possible,
1. Decides to adopt, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: “the Statute”) the amendments to the Statute contained in annex I of the present resolution, which are subject to ratification or acceptance and shall enter into force in accordance with article 121, paragraph 5; and notes that any State Party may lodge a declaration referred to in article 15 bis prior to ratification or acceptance;
2. Also decides to adopt the amendments to the Elements of Crimes contained in annex II of the present resolution;
3. Also decides to adopt the understandings regarding the interpretation of the abovementioned amendments contained in annex III of the present resolution;
4. Further decides to review the amendments on the crime of aggression seven years after the beginning of the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction;
5. Calls upon all States Parties to ratify or accept the amendments contained in annex I.
[…]
Zusammenfassung
Das Römer Statut bildet die rechtliche Grundlage für den ständigen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof mit Sitz in den Haag und ist im Juli 2002 in Kraft getreten (LGBl. 2002 Nr. 90). Bislang war der Internationale Strafgerichtshof (IStGH) für die Beurteilung der besonders schweren Verbrechen des Völkermords, des Verbrechens gegen die Menschlichkeit sowie der Kriegsverbrechens zuständig.
An der ersten Überprüfungskonferenz des Römer Statuts des IStGH, die im Juni 2010 in Kampala (Uganda) unter liechtensteinischem Vorsitz stattfand, wurde beschlossen, den Zuständigkeitsbereich des Gerichtshofs auf das Verbrechen der Aggression auszuweiten. Der Kompromisslösung in Bezug auf das Verbrechen der Aggression, die als historisches Ergebnis der Konferenz zu werten ist, gingen jahrelange Verhandlungen im Rahmen der dafür eingerichteten Arbeitsgruppe zur Definition des Aggressionsverbrechens voraus. Gemäss dieses Kompromisses kann die Führungsriege eines Staates für das Auslösen von bewaffneter Gewalt gegen die Souveränität, territoriale Integrität oder politische Unabhängigkeit eines anderen Staates vor dem IStGH zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, sofern die Gewaltanwendung die Charta der Vereinten Nationen eindeutig verletzt.
Ausserdem wurde an der Überprüfungskonferenz beschlossen, die Verwendung bestimmter Waffengattungen, deren Einsatz in internationalen Konflikten strafbar ist, auch in nicht internationalen Konflikten unter Strafe zu stellen. Für die Vertragsstaaten des IStGH entstand dadurch die Verpflichtung, die Änderungen des Römer Statuts betreffend das Verbrechen der Aggression (Art. 8 bis, Art. 15 bis, Art. 15 ter des Statuts) sowie betreffend die verbotenen Waffengattungen (Art. 8 des Statuts) umzusetzen.
Mit Beschluss vom 18. August 2010 entschied die Regierung, diese Änderungen des Römer Statuts baldmöglichst zu ratifizieren, da eine frühzeitige Ratifikation durch Liechtenstein nicht nur symbolische Bedeutung, sondern auch eine wichtige Signalwirkung für das Verständnis und die Akzeptanz des in Kampala beschlossenen Kompromisses hat.
Gleichzeitig wird die Kompromisslösung mit jeder Ratifikation der Änderungen des Römer Statuts bestätigt und andere Staaten werden zur Ratifikation animiert. Für die Aktivierung der Gerichtsbarkeit des IStGH zum Verbrechen der Aggression sind insgesamt 30 Ratifikationen notwendig. Aufgrund der liechtensteinischen Führungsrolle an der Überprüfungskonferenz sowie während den Verhandlungen zum Verbrechen der Aggression setzt eine rasche Ratifikation der Änderungen des Römer Statuts das liechtensteinische Engagement im Bereich des Völkerrechts und der Förderung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit auf internationaler Ebene fort.
Die innerstaatliche Umsetzung der Änderungen des Römer Statuts bedarf einer gesetzlichen Grundlage, die in einem separaten Bericht und Antrag dem Landtag unterbreitet wird. Dabei handelt es sich einerseits um eine allenfalls notwendige Anpassung des Gesetzes betreffend die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof und anderen Internationalen Gerichten (ZIGG). Diese Anpassung nach der Ratifikation der Statuts-Änderungen betreffend das Verbrechen der Aggression vorgenommen werden, da die Kooperationspflicht mit dem IStGH zum Verbrechen der Aggression frühestens 2017 aktiviert wird. Andererseits geht es um die Frage der Anpassung des Strafgesetzbuches (StGB) in Bezug auf das Verbrechen der Aggression sowie auf die Ausweitung des Verbots bestimmter Waffengattungen des ICC-Statuts. Diese Fragen werden im Zusammenhang mit der geplanten und bereits in Koordination mit den österreichischen Behörden vorzunehmenden Anpassung des Strafgesetzbuches zu Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Folter geklärt.
Es entstehen weder räumliche, organisatorische, personelle noch direkte finanzielle Auswirkungen.
[…]
Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung
Entwurf eines Gesetzes zu den Änderungen vom 10. und 11. Juni 2010 des Römischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs vom 17. Juli 1998
A. Problem und Ziel
Die auf der Überprüfungskonferenz in Kampala von den Vertragsstaaten des Römischen Statuts angenommenen Änderungen des Römischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs (BGBl. 2000 II S. 1393, 1394) schließen mit der Normierung des Aggressionstat – bestandes eine wesentliche Lücke der völkerrechtlichen Strafbarkeit. Durch die Änderung des Artikels 8 Absatz 2 Buchstabe e des Römischen Statuts in Bezug auf Kriegsverbrechen wird außerdem der Einsatz bestimmter Waffen und Geschosse, der bereits im Fall ihrer Verwendung in internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten ein Kriegsverbrechen darstellt, im Einklang mit dem Völkergewohnheitsrecht und dem deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuch auch im nichtinternationalen bewaffneten Konflikt unter Strafe gestellt.
B. Lösung
Durch den vorliegenden Gesetzentwurf sollen die Voraussetzungen nach Artikel 59 Absatz 2 Satz 1 des Grundgesetzes für die Ratifikation der am 10. und 11. Juni 2010 verabschiedeten Änderungen des Römischen Statuts
C. Alternativen
Keine.
[…]
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following:
On 11 June 2010, at the Review Conference of the Rome Statute, held in Kampala, Uganda, from 31 May to 11 June 2010, the Parties adopted, in accordance with article 121, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute by Resolution RC/Res.6.
In accordance with article 123, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute, the provisions of article 121, paragraphs 3 to 7, apply to the adoption and entry into force of any amendments to the Statute considered at the Review Conference.
Article 121, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 provide as follows:
“3. The adoption of an amendment at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties or at a Review Conference on which consensus cannot be reached shall require a two-thirds majority of States Parties.
“4. Except as provided in paragraph 5, an amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties one year after instruments of ratification or acceptance have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations by seven-eighths of them.
“5. Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party’s nationals or on its territory.
“6. If an amendment has been accepted by seven-eighths of States Parties in accordance with paragraph 4, any State Party which has not accepted the amendment may withdraw from this Statute with immediate effect, notwithstanding article 127, paragraph 1, but subject to article 127, paragraph 2, by giving notice no later than one year after the entry into force of such amendment.
“7. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall circulate to all States Parties any amendment adopted at a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties or at a Review Conference.”
In operative paragraph 1 of resolution RC/Res.6, the Review Conference adopted, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the amendments to the Statute contained in annex 1 to the resolution, “which are subject to ratification or acceptance and shall enter into force in accordance with article 121, paragraph 5”.
… A copy of the text of the amendments on the crime of aggression in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish languages is transmitted herewith. 29 November 2010
[…]
PREAMBLE
The States Parties to this Statute,
Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time,
Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity,
Recognizing that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world,
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation,
Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes,
Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes,
Reaffirming the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular that all States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,
Emphasizing in this connection that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State,
Determined to these ends and for the sake of present and future generations, to establish an independent permanent International Criminal Court in relationship with the United Nations system, with jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole,
Emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions,
Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice,
Have agreed as follows:
[…]
95. Under General Assembly resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to ” formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal “.
96. In pursuance of this resolution of the General Assembly, the Commission undertook a preliminary consideration of the subject at its first session. In the course of this consideration the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law The conclusion was that since the Nürnberg principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission by paragraph (a) of resolution 177 (II) was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. This conclusion was set forth in paragraph 26 of the report of the Commission on its first session, which report was approved by the General Assembly in 1949. Mr. Jean Spiropoulos was appointed special rapporteur to continue the work of the Commission on the subject and to present a report at its second session.
97. At the session under review, Mr. Spiropoulos presented his report (A/CN.4/22) which the Commission considered at its 44th to 49th and 54th meetings. On the basis of this report, the Commission adopted a formulation of the principles of international law which were recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal. The formulation by the Commission, together with comments thereon, is set out below.
[…]
THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN
SESSOIN AT NUREMBERG, GERMANY
Before:
THE RT. HON. SIR GEOFFREY LAWRENCE (member for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) President
THE HON. SIR WILLIAM NORMAN BIRKETT (alternate member for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
MR. FRANCIS BIDDLE (member for the United States of America)
JUDGE JOHN J. PARKER (alternate member for the United States of America)
M. LE PROFESSEUR DONNEDIEU DE VABRES (member for the French Republic)
M. LE CONSEILER FLACO (alternate member for the French Republic)
MAJOR-GENERAL I. T. NIKITCHENKO (member for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
LT.-COLONEL A. F. VOLCHKOV (alternate member for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
{iv}
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
Against:
Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Robert Ley, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter Funk, Hjalmar Schacht, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Martin Bormann, Franz von Papen, Artur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath, and Hans Fritzsche, individually and as members of any of the following groups namely: Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet); Das Korps der Politischen Leiter der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party); Die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the “SS”) and including Der Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the “SD”); Die Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, commonly known as the “GESTAPO”); Die Sturmabteilungen der N.S.D.A.P. (commonly known as the “SA”) and the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces.
Robert Ley committed suicide on 25th October, 1945.
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach – Trial postponed by order of Tribunal.
[…]
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
[…]
NEW YORK, 24 SEPTEMBER 2012 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
OPENING REMARKS BY H.E. MS. AURELIA FRICK, FOREIGN MINISTER OF LIECHTENSTEIN SIDE-EVENT: PREVENTING THE ILLEGAL USE OF FORCE THROUGH JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY – THE ROLE OF THE ICC AND STATES PARTIES AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE KAMPALA AMENDMENTS ON THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am proud to open this panel today, which is dedicated to “Preventing the illegal use of force through judicial accountability – the role of the ICC and States Parties after the adoption of the Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression”. For Liechtenstein, this brings together two of the top priorities in our multilateral work: First, the United Nations, the very purpose of which is to promote international peace and security. Its Charter contains the most important rule of international law: the prohibition of the illegal use of force. Second, the rule of law, the theme of the high-level meeting today, and in particular the role of the International Criminal Court in this respect. While aggression is prohibited under the UN Charter and thus has been illegal under international law for decades, we have so far not been able to use individual criminal justice to enforce the prohibition of the illegal use of force. In Nuremberg, some 65 years ago, twelve leading Nazi officers were convicted of “crimes against peace”. Since then, no other international criminal tribunal has had the competence to hold individuals accountable for the crime of aggression. We did not even have an internationally accepted definition of the crime of aggression. Instead, we had more wars, more aggression, and impunity.
[…]
On the occasion of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law, the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations will hold a
Ministerial Panel
“Preventing the illegal use of force through judicial accountability”
The role of the ICC and its States Parties after the adoption of the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression
Monday, 24 September 2012, 3:00 – 4:00 p.m.
NLB Conference Room 3
Opening remarks:
H.E. Ms. Aurelia Frick, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Principality of Liechtenstein
Keynote address:
Mr. Benjamin Ferencz – Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg “Einsatzgruppen” Trial 1947/48
Ministerial Panel:
H.E. Mr. Phandu Skelemani, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Botswana
H.E. Mr. Winston Dookeran, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
H.E. Mr. Armand De Decker, Minister of State, Kingdom of Belgium
[…]
Ministerial Panel: Preventing the illegal use of force through judicial accountability
The role of the ICC and its States Parties after the adoption of the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression
United Nations, New York, 24 September 2012
Meeting Summary
The discussions at the side-event to the General Assembly High-level meeting on the Rule of Law were highly positive. Following a keynote speech by Ben Ferencz, 15 States Parties from different regions expressed their strong commitment to ratify the Kampala amendments. Many of them echoed the concrete pledges they had made in this regard at the GA meeting. The UN Legal Counsel and the ASP President gave supportive statement. Three Non-States Parties also took the floor, of which only the United States expressed concerns.
[…]
A diez años de la entrada en vigor del Estatuto de Roma: ¿Cuánto ha avanzado la justicia penal internacional?
Informe Final
Lima, 17 y 18 de setiembre de 2012
Presentación
Los días lunes 17 y martes 18 de setiembre, entre las 3:00 p.m. y 7:00 p.m. en los anfiteatros Dammert y Zolezzi de la Facultad de Derecho de la PUCP se llevó a cabo la conferencia A diez años de la entrada en vigor del Estatuto de Roma: ¿Cuánto ha avanzado la justicia penal internacional?
Este evento fue coorganizado por la Coalición por la Corte Penal Internacional (CICC), el Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICR), el Instituto de Democracia y Derechos Humanos de la PUCP (IDEH-PUCP), la Maestría en Derechos Humanos de la PUCP y el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú.
Legal Workshop for States Parties Interested in the Ratification and Implementation of the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute
Saturday, 17 November 2012,
World Forum Convention Centre, The Hague
Room Europe 1 & 2 – Registration required
Programme
[…]
The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression, established pursuant to its resolution 2330 (XXII) of 18 December 1967, covering the work of its seventh session held from 11 March to 12 April 1974, including the draft Definition of Aggression adopted by the Special Committee by consensus and recommended for adoption by the General Assembly,(1)
Deeply convincedthat the adoption of the Definition of Aggression would contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security,
1. Approves the Definition of Aggression, the text of which is annexed to the present resolution;
2. Expresses its appreciation to the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression for its work which resulted in the elaboration of the Definition of Aggression;
3. Calls upon all States to refrain from all acts of aggression and other uses of force contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;(2)
4. Calls the attention of the Security Council to the Definition of Aggression, as set out below, and recommends that it should, as appropriate, take account of that Definition as guidance in determining, in accordance with the Charter, the existence of an act of aggression.
2319 plenary meeting 14 December 1974
[…]
Ministerial Panel: Preventing the illegal use of force through judicial accountability
The role of the ICC and its States Parties after the adoption of the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression
United Nations, New York, 24 September 2012
Meeting Summary
The discussions at the side-event to the General Assembly High-level meeting on the Rule of Law were highly positive. Following a keynote speech by Ben Ferencz, 15 States Parties from different regions expressed their strong commitment to ratify the Kampala amendments. Many of them echoed the concrete pledges they had made in this regard at the GA meeting. The UN Legal Counsel and the ASP President gave supportive statement. Three Non-States Parties also took the floor, of which only the United States expressed concerns.
[…]
Anlage 6
Zu Protokoll gegebene Reden
zur Beratung:
– Entwurf eines Gesetzes zu den Änderungen vom 10. und 11. Juni 2010 des Römischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs vom 17. Juli 1998
– Antrag: Universal Periodic Review – Menschenrechtslage in Deutschland auf dem Prüfstand des UN-Menschenrechtsrates
(Tagesordnungspunkte 16 a und b)
[…]
Deutscher Bundestag
Stenografischer Bericht
198. Sitzung
Berlin, Donnerstag, den 18. Oktober 2012
[…]
Tagesordnungspunkt 16:
Erste Beratung des von der Bundesregierung eingebrachten Entwurfs eines Gesetzes zu den Änderungen vom 10. und 11. Juni 2010 des Römischen Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs vom 17. Juli 1998
[…]
1 Information compiled from the questionnaire distributed by the Liechtenstein Mission, consultations with government officials, and from the mobilization of the members and the monitoring by the staff of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA). For queries, additions or corrections please contact joern.eiermann@nyc.llv.li.
I. Ratification
A. Ratifications registered with the Depositary of the Rome Statute (4 States Parties)
1. On 8 May 2012, Liechtenstein ratified, as the first country, the amendments on the crime of aggression together with the amendments on Article 8 (war crimes) adopted at the 2010 Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the ICC, held in Kampala, Uganda. The date chosen was highly symbolic, as it coincided with the commemoration of the end of World War II in Europe. The amendments will enter into force for Liechtenstein on 8 May 2013, while the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression can only be activated in 2017. In order to achieve this goal at least 30 States Parties will have ratify as early as possible, ideally by the end of 2015, and the Assembly of States Parties will have to decide to activate jurisdiction in 2017.
2. Since then, the following States have also ratified both Kampala amendments: Samoa (25 September 2012), Trinidad and Tobago (13 November 2012), Luxembourg (15 January 2013). Luxembourg is the first country having ratified and implemented the amendments.
B. Concrete progress
3. According to the information available, government or parliamentary officials in at least the following States Parties are currently actively working on the ratification of the amendments on the crime of aggression: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lesotho, Malta, the Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and Uruguay. In Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Japan, Latvia and Venezuela, the process is in its early stages.´
[…]
Download our more eleborate timeline