Is it a War Crime to Start a War?
Fast answer first. Then use the tabs or video for more detail.
- Watch the video explanation below for a faster overview.
- Game mechanics may change with updates or patches.
- Use this block to get the short answer without scrolling the whole page.
- Read the FAQ section if the article has one.
- Use the table of contents to jump straight to the detailed section you need.
- Watch the video first, then skim the article for specifics.
Yes, under international law, specifically through the principle of the crime of aggression, it is a war crime to start a war, provided certain conditions are met. However, the definition and prosecution of this crime have a complex and evolving history. It is not simply any act of war that constitutes a war crime, but rather a specific type of aggressive act committed at the highest levels of state leadership.
The Crime of Aggression: Defining the Unlawful Use of Force
The concept of aggressive war being illegal evolved significantly during the 20th century. Before then, war was often considered a legitimate tool of statecraft. However, the devastating consequences of World War I spurred efforts to outlaw aggressive war and hold individuals accountable.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the Road to Nuremberg
The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, officially known as the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, was a landmark agreement. While it didn’t explicitly define “aggression,” it committed signatory nations to renouncing war as a tool to resolve disputes. It was a significant step towards establishing the principle that aggressive war was illegal.
After World War II, the Nuremberg Trials solidified this principle. The International Military Tribunal (IMT) prosecuted Nazi leaders for, among other crimes, crimes against peace, which encompassed planning, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. This was a pivotal moment in establishing individual criminal responsibility for starting an illegal war. Key figures were convicted of this crime, cementing its place in international law.
The Rome Statute and the Kampala Amendments
Despite the precedent set at Nuremberg, the definition of the crime of aggression remained debated for decades. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in 1998, included the crime of aggression but left its definition and the conditions for the ICC’s jurisdiction over it unresolved.
These gaps were addressed by the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute, adopted in 2010. These amendments provided a precise definition of the crime of aggression:
-
Definition: “The planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”
-
Act of Aggression: Defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.” This can include invasion, military occupation, annexation, bombardment, blockade, or allowing another State to use its territory to commit aggression.
Key Elements for Prosecution
For an individual to be prosecuted for the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute, several conditions must be met:
- Leadership Position: The individual must be in a position of leadership where they effectively control or direct the political or military actions of a state. This means targeting high-ranking officials like heads of state, government ministers, or senior military commanders.
- Act of Aggression: There must be an actual act of aggression committed by the state.
- Manifest Violation of the UN Charter: The act of aggression must constitute a manifest violation of the UN Charter. This means the violation must be clear and obvious.
- Gravity and Scale: The act of aggression must be of sufficient “gravity and scale.” This is crucial, as not every use of force constitutes the crime of aggression. It must be a significant and serious act of aggression, and the scale must be demonstrably major.
- Jurisdictional Requirements: The ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression if the State on whose territory the aggression occurred, or the State whose national committed the aggression, has ratified the Kampala Amendments, and if the aggression occurred after the ratification came into force for those states. There are also opt-out provisions for states that have ratified. This significantly limits the ICC’s ability to prosecute the crime.
Challenges and Limitations
Despite these advancements, the prosecution of the crime of aggression faces significant challenges:
- State Sovereignty: The principle of state sovereignty remains a powerful force in international relations. Many states are reluctant to cede authority to international courts to judge their actions.
- Political Considerations: Decisions to prosecute individuals for the crime of aggression are often highly political. The ICC is often accused of being selective in its prosecutions, focusing on weaker states while avoiding powerful ones.
- Evidentiary Burdens: Proving that an individual in a leadership position intentionally planned and initiated an act of aggression can be extremely difficult. Evidence may be classified, access may be denied, and witnesses may be unavailable or unwilling to testify.
- Jurisdictional Limitations: The ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is limited by the ratification status of the Kampala Amendments and the opt-out provisions available to states.
Conclusion
While the principle that aggressive war is illegal is firmly established in international law, the prosecution of the crime of aggression remains a complex and challenging endeavor. The requirements for prosecution are stringent, and jurisdictional and political limitations exist. Despite these challenges, the establishment of the crime of aggression represents a significant step towards holding individuals accountable for the devastating consequences of unlawful war. Its future effectiveness will depend on the continued development of international law, the commitment of states to uphold its principles, and the willingness of international institutions to pursue justice impartially.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Here are 15 frequently asked questions (FAQs) with clear and concise answers to help you understand the complexities of the crime of aggression.
1. What is the difference between the crime of aggression and other war crimes?
The crime of aggression concerns the initiation of a war. Other war crimes, such as torture or targeting civilians, concern conduct during a war, irrespective of whether the war itself is legal. The crime of aggression focuses on the decision to use force in the first place.
2. Can individuals other than heads of state be prosecuted for the crime of aggression?
Yes, but only those in positions of effective control over the political or military actions of a state. This generally includes government ministers, senior military commanders, and other individuals who have the authority to decide to initiate an act of aggression. Lower-ranking personnel are unlikely to face prosecution for this specific crime.
3. Does the ICC have jurisdiction over all acts of aggression?
No. The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to states that have ratified the Rome Statute and the Kampala Amendments, and even then, some states have opted out of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Moreover, the crime must have occurred after the Kampala Amendments came into force for the relevant states.
4. What constitutes a “manifest violation” of the UN Charter?
A “manifest violation” means a clear and obvious violation of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which prohibits the 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. It requires a high threshold of clarity.
5. What does “gravity and scale” mean in the context of the crime of aggression?
“Gravity and scale” refer to the seriousness and magnitude of the act of aggression. It must be a significant and substantial use of force, not a minor border skirmish or isolated incident. The consequences of the aggression must be substantial.
6. Can a war be considered legal under some circumstances?
Yes. The UN Charter allows for the use of force in two main circumstances: self-defense (Article 51) and when authorized by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII).
7. What role does the UN Security Council play in determining whether an act of aggression has occurred?
The UN Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. While the ICC can investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression independently, the Security Council’s determination that an act of aggression has occurred can be highly influential.
8. Has anyone been convicted of the crime of aggression by the ICC?
No. As of 2023, the ICC has not yet prosecuted anyone for the crime of aggression. This is due to the jurisdictional limitations and the complex political considerations involved.
9. What is the significance of the Nuremberg Trials in the context of the crime of aggression?
The Nuremberg Trials established the precedent that initiating a war of aggression is a crime under international law. Nazi leaders were convicted of crimes against peace, which included planning, initiating, or waging a war of aggression. This set the stage for the later development of the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute.
10. How does the crime of aggression relate to the principle of state sovereignty?
The crime of aggression potentially infringes on the principle of state sovereignty, as it allows international courts to judge the actions of states and hold their leaders accountable. However, proponents argue that the crime of aggression is necessary to prevent states from using force unlawfully and to protect the international legal order.
11. What are some examples of acts that could constitute aggression?
Examples include: invasion of another state’s territory, military occupation, bombardment, blockade of ports or coasts, sending armed bands or mercenaries to attack another state, and allowing another state to use one’s territory to launch an attack on a third state.
12. What are some defenses that could be raised against a charge of aggression?
Potential defenses could include: acting in self-defense, acting with the authorization of the UN Security Council, arguing that the act of aggression was not of sufficient gravity and scale, or challenging the evidence linking the individual to the decision to initiate the act of aggression.
13. What is the role of intent in proving the crime of aggression?
Proving intent is crucial. The prosecution must demonstrate that the individual in a leadership position intentionally planned, prepared, initiated, or executed the act of aggression. This can be challenging, as it requires access to internal documents and communications.
14. How does the crime of aggression deter future wars?
By holding individuals accountable for starting illegal wars, the crime of aggression aims to deter future leaders from using force unlawfully. The threat of prosecution can act as a disincentive to aggressive behavior.
15. What are the main criticisms of the crime of aggression?
The main criticisms include: its potential infringement on state sovereignty, the political nature of decisions to prosecute, the jurisdictional limitations of the ICC, and the difficulty of proving intent and meeting the threshold of “gravity and scale.” Some argue that the crime is selectively applied, targeting weaker states while avoiding powerful ones.