|
A crime against peace, in international law, refers to the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state, or else a military violation of relevant international treaties, agreements or legally binding assurances. The definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a war crime.
Definition No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their face value would seem to disclose the following: This definition of the crime of aggression belongs to jus cogens, which is supreme in the hierarchy of international law and, therefore, it cannot be modified by, or give way to, any rule of international law but one of the same rank. An arguable example is any rule imposing a conflicting obligation to prevent, interdict or vindicate crimes which also belong to jus cogens, namely aggression itself, crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, slavery, torture and piracy, so that a war waged consistent with the aim of repressing any of these crimes might not be illegal where the crime comes within the limit of proportionality relative to war and its characteristic effects. Kellogg-Briand Pact In 1927, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, said: The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. Nuremberg Principles In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used in by Finnish courts to prosecute the agressors in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles. In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945. During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. United Nations Charter The United Nations Charter says in Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are:
The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations' Charter, which states in article 2, paragraph 4 that All Members shall refrain in their international relations 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. Article 33 The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means. Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security Historical Examples Some experts claim that U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, should be tried for war crimes along with President Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars (crime against the peace). In this view, since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a war to defend against an imminent threat, it was a war of aggression, and therefore under the Nuremberg Principles it constitutes the supreme international crime from which all other war crimes follow. For example, Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq (OneWorld.net, August 25, 2006, free archived version available at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-06.htm last visited 8/25/2006). "There was no authorization from the U.N. Security Council ... and that made it a crime against the peace," said Francis Boyle, professor of international law, who also said the U.S. Army's field manual required such authorization for an offensive war (The Seatlle Times, Aug. 18, 2006, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003207442_watada18m.html). See also | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |