CHAPTER 7

Legal Regulation of Use of

Force
The Law Before 1945
 Under natural law - the concept of just war
according to Christian theologians
- only to punish wrongdoer, to restore status quo
ante & must be proportionate
- also for defence @ enforcement of one’s rights
 Under positivism:
• Nation-state’s right to go to war for any reason
• Recognition of conquests
• From 17th century until 20th century
The Law Before 1945
 Attempts to prohibit war:
• Covenant of League of Nations – limited restrictions
on sovereign right to go to war – some procedures
must be followed.
• General Treaty for Renunciation of War 1928 (Treaty
of Paris) – renounce use of war in international
relations.
The Law After 1945
 Art 2(4) UNC – All Members shall refrain from threat or use
of force in international relations against territorial integrity &
political independence of other States.
 Meaning of force:
• only `armed’ force, not economic force @ political pressure
(travaux preparatoire)
• But not confined to direct use of force – Nicaragua case
 threat of force – example – ultimatum to use military
measures if demand is not met
 (UK & French ultimatum to Egypt & Israel for ceasefire)
 Prohibition of use of force – jus cogens
Interpreting Art. 2(4)
Permissive Interpretation of Art 2 (4)

 Prohibition of use of force only if against territorial

integrity/political independence of a State.
 If not to occupy a State (e.g. transitory operation to
protect nationals) is not illegal.
 Used by Britain in Corfu Channel case –
minesweeping operations not cause territorial loss or
loss of territorial independence there. Rejected by ICJ.
Interpreting Art. 2(4)
Restrictive Interpretation of Art 2(4)
 Total prohibition of use of force unless for self-

defence (Art 51) @ collective security measures

(Chapter VII)
 Accepted by majority of jurists.

 But there are still instances where permissive view

was used as justification like in the Entebbe

incident.
3 fundamental rules underlying UN Charter

1. Use of force is prohibited (Art. 2(4))

2. Collective body is entrusted to exercise police
power if there’s threat to peace, breach of peace or
act of aggression (Arts. 39, 41 & 42)
3. In exceptional circumstances, a State can defend
against armed attack…(Art. 51)
Exceptions to Prohibition of Use of Force

 Right of self-defence of States – Art 51

 Collective use of force under Chapter VII
Right of Self-Defence
 One of 3 pillars of the UN system (apart from prohibition of
uof & collective security system
 Art 51:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual & collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of UN…”
 Elements of lawful self-defence:
 Armed attack
Laid down in
 Necessity & proportionality Nicaragua case & Oil
 Vital role of SC Platforms case
 Can be individual or collective
Must self-defence be only in response to armed
attack?

 2 views:

 Permissive view
 Restrictive view
Permissive view
 self-defence need not be a response to actual armed
attack
 There can be wider rights self-defence under CIL
 Because of the word “inherent” in Art 51
 Also from travaux preparatoire of Art 51 – right of
self-defence is safeguared not restricted
Restrictive View
 Art 51 restricts self-defence only to only when there
is prior armed attack
 Due to the wording of Art 51 – “nothing shall impair
right of self-defence if an armed attack occurs”
 to be given ordinary meaning in its context
 Since language is not ambiguous, supplementary means
of interpretation (travaux preparatoire) is not
appropriate
 Restrictive view is consistently upheld by ICJ
Meaning of Armed Attack
 “Armed attack” is a species of aggression (used in
Art. 39).
 Hence armed attack is narrower in scope.
 But more severe.
 French translation of armed attack – “une
aggression armee” which means “aggression which
is armed”.
Meaning of Armed Attack
 Nicaragua case – US argued that Art 51 not confined to
armed attack but also to border incidents or acts of
terrorists or insurgents in another State.
 Held (ICJ) – armed attack may include:
 Action by regular armed forces across an international border
and
 Sending of armed bands, groups, mercenaries carrying out acts
of armed forces against another - gravity: amount to actual
armed attack by regular armed forces.
 Mere frontier incidents – not armed attack (in line with de
minimis rule in UNGA Reso. Defining Agression)
Direct Armed Attack by A State
 May include:
1. Invasion or attack of territory of another State
2. Military occupation however temporary resulting
from such invasion or territory
3. Bombardment by armed forces of a State against
the territory of anor. State or use of any weapons
by a State against the territory of anor. State
Under UNGA 1974 Definition of Aggression
Indirect Armed Attack by Non-State Actors
Attributable to a State

 The action of armed bands / irregulars sent by a State can be

armed attack coz of its scale & effects (gravity of the attack).
 In case of “sending” sufficiently close link between State &
the private groups exists, & the State can be responsible for
the armed attack.
 Substantial involvement of State in action of such armed
bands / irregulars to carry out acts of armed force against anor.
State can also be armed attack
 But mere assistance (weapons, logistical & other supports)
not sufficient to be armed attack in the meaning of Art. 51.
Other important aspects of armed attack

 Armed attack must be in progress or on-going –

“occurs” in Art. 51.
 Retaliation for a prior completed is not self-defence
but armed reprisals.
 Occupation of territory is regarded as continuous
armed attack.
Target of Armed Attack
 Only against the State (in Art 51) to be read with “against
territorial integrity/political independence” in Art 2(4). Also see
Nicaragua case
 So targets can either be:
 State territory:
 Any section of territory (land, air or water) including persons & property
therein
 State positions abroad:
 Attack on land, sea or air forces, or marine or air fleets of anor. State outside
the national territory amounts to armed attack if the use of force is significant
 But individual nationals / diplomatic missions can’t be object of
armed attack.
The Beginning of Armed Attack
 First use of armed force is prima facie evidence of aggression

 Large armed formations of a State cross an international

frontier of another State, without consent, an armed attack is
deemed to occur.

 Pressing button to launch inter-continental ballistic missiles

(ICBMs) or taking off bombers with clear intent to bomb the
target State can be treated as beginning of armed attack –
State can take self-defence before missiles hit its territory or
bombers drop bombs
Necessity
 “only if an armed attack occurs”
 There must not be other ways to halt armed attack
than use of armed forces.
 Immediacy – must take self-defence immediately
after the armed attack – Nicaragua (few months
after attack, not immediate)
Proportionality
 Difficult to define
 But s-d need not be equal with the attack
 Self-defence must end after objectives are fulfilled:
 What are the objectives – fend off current & future
attacks & restore territorial status quo ante bellum.
 Self-defence can’t be for occupying another State
for some time @ to overthrow a legitimate govt.
Reporting Requirement
 acts of self-defence must be immediately reported
to SC (Art 51).
 Issue – whether it’s mandatory @ directory?
 Nicaragua case – it’s mandatory, so can’t plead
self-defence if not report to SC.
 Another issue – right of self-defence ends once SC
has taken measures.
Individual Self-Defence
 Requirements for Individual Self-Defence (on top
of actual armed attack)
1. Necessity
2. Proportionality
#both in Art 51 & CIL (Nicaragua case)
Collective Self-Defence
 Requirements of “armed attack, necessity &
proportionality” apply.
 Addition – request from victim State to assist it –
Nicaragua case
 Collective self-defence treaties – to fend off future
attacks.
Controversial Uses of Force
 Anticipatory self-defence
 Claim of self-defence against a terrorist attack
 Armed reprisals
 Humanitarian intervention
Legality of Anticipatory Self-Defence

 Stems from “military necessity” – “best defence is

to attack first & break up the enemy forces before
they have time to move”.
 Advocated by Bowett & McDougal
 Basis of pro-anticipatory self-defence:
1. Allowed by CIL
2. Nuclear weapons & modern sophisticated devices –
not advisable to wait for the attack
 Nuclear weapons & self-defence
Anticipatory self-defence is not an established
rule of CIL

 Caroline incident as a evidence of CIL rule on self-defence:

 Caroline – American ship used by Canadian rebels, then was
moored at American port. British entered American territory,
seized it, fired & sent to Niagara falls.
 Letter from US Secretary of State to British Minister –
Britain must show a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming,
leaving no choice of means & no moment for deliberation…
 Does Caroline incident lead to CIL?
Facts leading to Caroline – there was already occupation of
British territory by rebels
Only between 2 States – elements of CIL not fulfilled
Anticipatory self-defence is not an established
rule of CIL

 even if fulfils elements of CIL, cannot survive UN

Charter
 prohibition of use of force in Art 2(4) subject to the 2
exceptions is jus cogens
 Post UN Charter State practice is not in support of
anticipatory self-defence – very few States has openly
invoked it:
 Israel Destruction of Iraqi Nuclear Reactor (1981):
attracted condemnation by SC
 State practice after 9/11:
State Practice After 9/11
 War on Afghanistan:
 Claim by the US in attack on Afghanistan to deter further attacks on the
US – where armed attack has occured but not on-going, defending State
can use force if can show further attacks are planned.

 War on Iraq (2003):

 Legal justification was known as the Bush doctrine – doctrine of pre-
emptive self-defence in the National Security strategy.
 Was met by opposition from international community.

 Israeli attacks on Syria (2003): also was condemned by international

community – Spanish condemnation mentions violation of IL by
Israel.
Nuclear weapons & modern sophisticated
missiles system

 When your enemy has the above, can they legitimise

anticipatory self-defence (ASD)?
 Should States wait like a sitting duck?
 There is technology to intercept ICBMs – Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM).
 But what if the missiles carry nuclear weapons?
 Nuclear deterrence policy
 Rely on second strike capability so that both sides can inflict
“mutually assured destruction” (MAD).
 Will ASD
Claim of self-defence against a terrorist
attack

 Art. 51 – self-defence only available if attacked by another

State.
 How about attacks by non-State actors?
 SC resolutions were passed pronouncing that terrorist attack is
within the meaning of armed attack in Art. 51.
 Higher threshold of state responsibility in case a State harbours
terrorists.
 Art. 51 only emphasises target of armed attack (which must be a
State); not on the perpetrators – whether it come fro State or not
is immaterial.
 How to refute the claims?
Claim of self-defence against a terrorist
attack

 How to refute the claims?

 International law is still State-centred
 Prohibition in Art. 2(4) is of inter-State use of force, thus the
exception to it in Art. 51 must only concern conduct of States
 To include terrorist attacks into Art 51 will lift the status of
terrorists as potential subjects of international law
 Apart of obligations, they will also have rights under the law
 They cannot be denied protection under IHL

 Nicaragua case and its appraisals by proponents &

opponents of including terrorist attack in “armed attack” in
Article 51:
Claim of self-defence against a terrorist
attack

 Nicaragua case and its appraisals by proponents &

opponents of including terrorist attack in “armed attack” in
Article 51:
 Is Nicaragua case dead?
 Extension of definition of armed attack to non-State actors
subject to 2 conditions:
1. Attribution
2. Scale & effects
 Does not include supporting, harbouring, tolerating or
acquiescing terrorists; but there can still be State
responsibility.
Claim of self-defence against a terrorist
attack
 Claim that SC Resolutions 1368 and 1373 decide that 9/11 terrorist attacks
constitute armed attack under Art. 51.

 To rebut:
 No express mention in the resolutions to such an effect
 Only affirm that the attacks constitute a threat to international peace & security which
may trigger Chapter VII measures
 Reference to “inherent right of self-defence” is only in Preamble – no mention of who
is the perpetrator and who’s the victim.

 9/11 attacks due to its scale & effects can constitute armed attack but must be
State-sponsored.

 State responsibility – attribution to State must be established

Armed Reprisals
 Reprisal – an act in retaliation of a State to an illegal act
committed against itself by an act of a similar kind.
 Armed reprisals are no longer lawful after 1945.
 Difference between reprisals and self-defence:
 Self-defence – protective, not punitive.
 Reprisals – punitive.
 Thus armed reprisals are prohibited:
 Condemnations by SC of Israeli uses of armed reprisals.
 Reprisals / retaliation are not found in UN Charter
 GA Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 – States
have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving use of force.
Humanitarian Intervention
Intervention & Use of Force
 Principle of Non-Intervention (part of CIL – Nicaragua
case)
 GA Declaration on Inadmissibility of Intervention in
Domestic Affairs of States – direct & indirect
intervention in the internal affairs of another State
violates international law.
 Thus interference into personality of the State or its
political, economic & cultural elements is prohibited.
 Nicaragua case – prohibition also extends to
intervention into external affairs of States.
Intervention & Use of Force
 Civil war not prohibited by Art 2(4).
 If full-fledged war, both parties become
belligerents & subject to IL
 But third states can’t intervene.
 Intervention at request of legitimate govt.
 Aid to rebels.
Humanitarian Intervention
 when it can legally happen?
 Does it allow States to use force to intervene to
prevent & suppress large scale violations of HR?
 Mixture of humanitarian ends & non-humanitarian
ends.
 Cases – India’s intervention in East Pakistan,
Tanzania’s invasion of Uganda…
Humanitarian Intervention
 Is there such thing as customary right of HI?
 Do States intervene because they accept that there’s
a right of humanitarian intervention?
 HI runs counter Art. 2(4) & don’t fulfill Art 51,
unless it is done under Chapter VII (collective HI)
MODERN LAW OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED
CONFLICTS
Definition of International Armed Conflicts

 Common Article 2 to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions

 The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or
more of the High Contracting Parties (States), even if the state
of war is not recognized by one of them.

 Additional Protocol 1 to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions

 The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include
armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial
domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in
the exercise of their right of self-determination.
Non-International armed conflict
 Fighting on territory of State between regular
armed forces & an identifiable armed group or
between such groups
 But look at the intensity of the fighting & time
Functions of IHL
 Protect people who do not take part in the
hostilities
 Restrict methods & means of warfare used.
2 branches of IHL
 Law of Geneva – to protect military who no longer
take part in hostilities & civilians
 First Geneva Convention was adopted & developed in
1864
 Law of the Hague – create rights & obligations of
belligerents in military operations

 With the Additional Protocols of 1977, both are

combined.
Philosophy underlying International Humanitarian
Law

 Philosophically – war is between States, not men.

So men are enemies only during war, their
properties are subject being enemy properties only
during war (acc to Rousseau).
 Once the war has ended, things should go back to
normal.
IHL, jus ad bellum & jus in bello
 Jus in bello – law in war
 Jus ad bellum – law on the use of force
 Jus contra bellum – law on the prevention of war

 IHL does not depend on legality of use of force @

who is at fault.
 IHL protect war victims regardless which party they
belong to.
Fundamental Principles of International
Humanitarian Law
 Distinction principle:
 Article 48 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “[T]he Parties to the conflict shall
at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.”
 Article Article 13, Protocol II -- Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against
the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the
following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of
attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among
the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as
they take a direct part in hostilities.

 Military necessity
 Prevention of unnecessary suffering
 Proportionality
Military Necessity
 Article 52 Additional Protocol I -- General protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects
are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are

concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature,
location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose
total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at
the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian

purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being
used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to
be so used.
Prevention of unnecessary suffering

 Rule 70. Weapons of a Nature to Cause Superfluous Injury or

Unnecessary Suffering

 St. Petersburg Declaration:

 That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to
accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy;
 That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible
number of men;
 That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which
uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death
inevitable;
 That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the
laws of humanity;
There are various declarations & conventions

 Hague Declaration concerning Asphyxiating Gases

 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets
 Article 8(2)(b)(xx) of the 1998 ICC Statute, the
following constitutes a war crime in international armed
conflicts:
 Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of
warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or
unnecessary suffering … provided that such weapons,
projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the
subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in
an annex to this Statute
Proportionality – Article 51, Protocol I
 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a
specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be
limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to
strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) …; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to
civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Who are those protected by IHL?
 Individuals or categories of individuals no longer actively
involved in conflict i.e.
 Wounded or sick military personnel in land warfare, and members
of armed forces’ medical services
 Wounded, sick or shipwrecked military personnel in naval warfare,
and members of the naval forces’ medical services
 Prisoners of war
 Civilian population such as:
 Foreign civilians on territory of parties to the conflict including refugees
 Civilians in occupied territories
 Civilian detainees & internees
 Medical & religious personnel or civil defence units
The Law Applicable to Non-International Armed
Conflicts
 Art 3 Common to Geneva Conventions
 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their
arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith,
sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with
respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.
The Law Applicable to Non-International Armed
Conflicts
 (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red

Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of
special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the
Parties to the conflict.

 Stricter protection is provided for by Protocol II Common to Geneva Conventions

 However, it is more challenging for humanitarian law because:

 Lack of disciplines among belligerents
 Weapons flooding the territory where conflicts happen
 Difficult to distinguish between fighters & civilians
Disarmament and Arms Control
 What is disarmament?
 Literally – reduction or elimination by State of its
military weapons
 Terminologically – can mean total elimination of
weapons of mass destruction: UN General Assembly
Resolution Adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc
Committee of the Tenth Special Session, 27th Plenary
Meeting, 30 June 1978.
Disarmament and Arms Control
 Began with arms race particularly between British & Germany
 WW1 – attempt was made but did not succeed because disarmament was
only imposed on the defeated.
 They tried to control chemical weapons & strategic bombing in 1921 thru
the Temporary Mixed Commission on Armaments was set up by the
League of Nations.
 Washington Naval Treaty between Great Britain, US & Japan concluded in
1922 -
 Other attempts broke down with outbreak of WW2 including the Kellog-
Briand Pact 1926
 US use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki 1945, with consent of
UK, in pursuant to Quebec Agreement 1943
 New issue – biological weapons – COVID-19?
Institutional Issues Relating to International Crimes

 What are the international crimes?

 Major development at the end of WW2 – Nuremberg Charter
annexed to the Agreement for the Prosecutn & Punishmnt of Major
War Criminals 1945 set up the Nuremberg Tribunal

 Nuremberg Tribunal held – “IL imposes duties & liabilities upon

individuals as well as upon States”. This was because “crimes
against IL are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only
by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the
provision of IL be enforced”.
 2 war crimes tribunals (Tokyo & Nuremberg) & the latest 2 (Int’l
Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia & Rwanda)
Institutional Issues Relating to International Crimes

 ICTY – established by SC Reso. 827 (1993) –

prosecute & try offences like:
 (i) grave breaches of 1949 Conventions (Art 2 of Statute
of ICTY)
 (ii) violations of laws & customs of war (Art 3)
 (iii) genocide (Art 4)
 (iv) crimes ag. humanity (Art 5)
 The decisions of ICTY were to be adopted by
Security Council & made binding on all Member
States
Institutional Issues Relating to International Crimes

 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

– concluded 1998, entered into force 2002
 Established ICC with court’s functions, jurisdiction &
structure
 Establishes 4 categories of international crimes: genocide,
crimes ag. humanity, war crimes & crime of aggression
(Art 5)
 Art 25(1) – ICC have jurisdiction over natural persons
 Art 25(2) – person who commits a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible &
liable for punishment…
Definition of Genocide (Art 6 Rome Statute)

 means any of the following acts committed with intent to

destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such:
 (a)     Killing members of the group;
 (b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
 (c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part;
 (d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
 (e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Definition of Crimes Against Humanity (Article 7)

 For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following
acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any
civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

 (a)     Murder; (b)     Extermination; (c)     Enslavement; (d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of
population;
 (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental
rules of international law;
 (f)     Torture; (g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
 (h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national,
ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally
recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in
this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
 (i)     Enforced disappearance of persons; (j)     The crime of apartheid;
 (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious
injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Definition of War Crimes (Article
8)
    For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:(a)     Grave breaches of
the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts
against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant
Geneva Convention:
 (i)     Wilful killing; (ii)     Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological
experiments;
 (iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
 (iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
 (v)     Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of
a hostile Power;
 (vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of
fair and regular trial;
 (vii)     Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
 (viii)     Taking of hostages.
Crime of Aggression (Art 5(2))
 Is not defined in Rome Statute.

 2.        The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the

crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in
accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the
crime and setting out the conditions under which the
Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this
crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the
relevant provisions of the Charter of the United
Nations.