Symposium: The Crime of Aggression before the International Criminal Court
Abstract
Although the Kampala adoption of a regime for the crime of aggression has been generally hailed as a breakthrough, it needs to be understood as part of the long-term evolution of international criminal justice as a peace project. Jus contra bellum considerations have, if anything, dramatically declined in the second half of the 20th century as a central theme in the comprehension of international criminal justice. Compared to an earlier era, starting in the interwar period and culminating in Nuremberg and Tokyo, that saw ‘crimes against peace’ as the ‘crimes of crimes’, contemporary international criminal tribunals are much more concerned with ‘atrocity crimes’. This evolution is strongly correlated to evolving ideas about the nature of international peace and security that are increasingly understood not in their interstate dimension but, rather, as threatened by the breakdown of societies into conflict. It may even be that, compared to a classical approach in which the international criminal justice project was seen as a crucial part of the collective security regime, international criminal justice is now one of the factors that potentially undermines traditional prohibitions on the use of force. Taking seriously the idea that international criminal justice can be understood as a peace project, this article will delineate some of the ways in which it has also contributed to redefining the very meaning of peace in potentially problematic ways.
Full text available in PDF format