Рус Eng During last 365 days Approved articles: 1924,   Articles in work: 305 Declined articles: 811 
Library
Articles and journals | Tariffs | Payments | Your profile

Back to contents

Aggression as a continuous offence in light of adoption of Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5 by the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Kantur Ruslan

Lawyer, the Department on the Questions of New Challenges and Threats, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

119200, Russia, Moskva, g. Moscow, ul. Smolenskaya-Sennaya, 32/34

ru.a.kantur@gmail.com

Abstract.

The subject of this work is the analysis of aggression as an international offence and the possibility of realization of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court (ICC) pertinent to this offense. Leaning on the doctrine of continuous crime, the author sets a goal to answer the question on potential expansion of ICC jurisdiction onto the offence of aggression after activation of such based on the Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5. of the Assembly of State Parties of the ICC with regards to offences stipulated by the Article 8bis of the Rome Statute. A conclusion was made that aggression falls under the definition of continuous offences. Therefore, the author makes an assumption whereby with regards to the acts of aggression, the initial moment of which is preliminary to the Resolution ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, and the final moment is yet to occur, ICC in compliance with the conditions stipulated by the Article 2 of the indicated Resolution is legally qualified to exercise jurisdiction.

Keywords: continuing crimes, jurisdiction ratione temporis, imperative provision, universal jurisdiction, International Criminal Court, aggression, international offences, continuous crimes, military occupation, forced annexation

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0633.2018.2.25158

Article was received:

15-05-2018


Review date:

08-01-2018


Publish date:

18-06-2018


This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Blum M.I. Deistvie sovetskogo ugolovnogo zakona v prostranstve. — Riga: Redaktsionno-izdatel'skii otdel Latviiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. Petra Stuchki, 1974. S. 130-132.
2.
Glotova S.V. Immunitety dolzhnostnykh lits gosudarstva i otvetstvennost' za mezhdunarodnye prestupleniya: mezhdunarodnoe i natsional'noe pravo // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. — 2016. — № 2. S. 130-131.
3.
Kudryavtsev V.N. Ob''ektivnaya storona prestupleniya. — M.: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo yuridicheskoi literatury, 1960. S. 94.
4.
Lukashuk I.I. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo: Osobennaya chast'. T. 2. — M.: Volters Kluver, 2010. S. 296.
5.
Mezhdunarodnoe pravo / Otv. red. A.N. Vylegzhanin. — M.: Izdatel'stvo Yurait; ID Yurait, 2010. S. 724.
6.
Naumov A.V., Kibal'nik A.G., Orlov V.N., Volosyuk P.V. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo. — M.: Izdatel'stvo Yurait, 2015. S. 199.
7.
Rudenko R.A. Zaklyuchitel'naya rech' obvinitelya ot SSSR // Nyurnbergskii protsess: Sbornik dokumentov. T. II — M.: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo yuridicheskoi literatury, 1954. S. 930-931.
8.
Rusinova V.N. Immunitety vysshikh dolzhnostnykh lits i ikh ugolovnoe presledovanie za mezhdunarodnye prestupleniya // Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2006. — № 2 (62). S. 122.
9.
Skuratova A.Yu. K voprosu ob immunitete ot ugolovnoi yurisdiktsii dolzhnostnykh lits v sluchae soversheniya mezhdunarodnykh prestuplenii // Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava. — 2009. — № 3 (75). S. 108.
10.
Sovetskoe ugolovnoe pravo: Chast' obshchaya / Pod red. V.M. Chkhikvadze. — M.: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo yuridicheskoi literatury, 1959. S. 329.
11.
Chernichenko S.V. Vzaimosvyaz' imperativnykh norm mezhdunarodnogo prava (jus cogens) i obyazatel'stv erga omnes // Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava. — 2012. — № 3 (87). S. 10-13.
12.
Bankas E.K. The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2005. P. 256-257.
13.
Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgement of 5 February 1970, I.C.J. Reports 1970, para. 33.
14.
Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgement of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986. PP. 4-150.
15.
Case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Bula-Bula to the Judgement of 14 February 2002, I.C.J. Reports 2002, para. 13.
16.
Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate Opinion of Judge Elaraby to the Judgement of 19 December 2005, I.C.J. Reports 2005, para. 15.
17.
Cryer R. An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. PP. 558-559.
18.
Damgaard C. Individual Criminal Responsibility for Core International Crimes: Selected Pertinent Issues. Berlin: Springer, 2008. PP. 269-272.
19.
Ferencz B.B. The Crime of Aggression // Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law. Vol. I. Commentary. P. 53.
20.
Grover L. Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. P. 191.
21.
Guilfoyle D. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. PP. 295-298.
22.
Kielsgard M.D. National Self-Defence in the Age of Terrorism: Immediacy and State Attribution // Post 9/11 and the State of Permanent Legal Emergency: Security and Human Rights in Countering Terrorism. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2012. PP. 334-337.
23.
McDougall C. The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. PP. 153-155.
24.
Murphy S.D. United States Practice in International Law. Vol. 1: 1999-2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. P. 386.
25.
Nissel A. Continuing Crimes in the Rome Statute // Michigan Journal of International Law, 2004. Vol. 25, Iss. 3. P. 659.
26.
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. the Netherlands), Judgement of 20 February 1969, I.C.J. Reports 1969, para. 77.
27.
Scharf M.P. Customary International Law in Times of Fundamental Change: Recognising Grotian Moments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. PP. 96-97.
28.
Scharf M.P. Universal Jurisdiction and the Crime of Aggression // Harvard International Law Journal, 2012. Vol. 53, Iss. 2. P. 388.
29.
Webb Ph. International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. P. 124.
30.
United States of America v. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., Judgement of 27 October 1948, American Military Tribunal, Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XI. PP. 462-697.