| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
With the end of the Cold War, military interventions in the name of an "expanded" interpretation of self-defense or in the name of humanitarian intervention have taken front stage. Hence the deep Third World support for the resurgence of the individual crime of aggression, through which they want to replace the concept of aggression front and centre before the international community. To counter any political use of the notion of aggression, Third World States want clear and unalterable definitions of both the crime of aggression and of State aggression, with this latter being an element of the former. In this article, after having shed light on the Third World's role in the long road to defining the individual crime of aggression and the State aggression underlying it, we will thus evaluate this effort. We will attempt to show that there is a strong possibility that any push towards criminalizing aggression at the level of the individual will not accomplish the desired goal. It could also severely backlash against the Third World States. We think there is a real risk that the accused standing before international criminal tribunals will be prejudiced by the power play that pervades international politics, however rigid the definition of the crime.
|