Aggression at the Court of Appeal

Journal of Conflict and Security Law

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 209-230

  Cryer, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27644589300     PISSN: 14677954     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jcsl/kri012     Document Type: Review

References (163)

1. See, for example, A. D'Amato, H.L. Could & L.D. Woods, 'War Crimes and Vietnam: The "Nuremberg Defence" and the Military Service Resistor', (1969) 57 California Law Review 1055
2. M. Lipmann, 'Nuremberg Forty-Five Years Later', (1991) 7 Connecticut Journal of International Law 1, 52-60.
3. For representative literature on the disputed nature of the lawfulness of the Iraq conflict, see W.H. Taft & T.F. Buchwald, 'Preemption, Iraq and International Law', (2003) 97 AJIL 557
4. T.M. Franck, 'What Happens Now? The United Nations After Iraq', (2003) 97 AJIL 607
5. C. Greenwood, 'International Law and the Pre-emptive Use of Force: Afghanistan, Al-Quaida and Iraq', (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal 7
6. C. Stahn, 'Enforcement of the Collective Will After Iraq', (2003) 97 AJIL 804
7. V. Lowe, 'The Iraq Crisis: What Now?', (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 859
8. N.D. White & E. Myjer, 'Editorial: The Use of Force Against Iraq', (2003) 8 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 1. For those who are counting, I remain of the view that the conflict was unlawful under the jus ad bellum;
9. see R. Cryer & A.P. Simester, 'Iraq and the Use of Force: Do the Side Effects Justify the Means?', (2005) 6 Theoretical Inquiries in Law (forthcoming).
10. See the Debate in the House of Commons, HC Hansard, 26 February 2004, cols 427-440.
11. Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard and Richards v Gloucester Crown Prosecution Service [2004] EWCA 1981 (hereinafter 'Judgment').
12. This run-through of the facts is based on paragraph 2 of the Judgment.
13. Judgment, para. 2.
14. See, for example, Conway [1989] QB 83.
15. See, generally, A. Simester & G. Robert Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2nd edn., 2003) 597-599.
16. 8 R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health Trust [1998] 3 All ER 289
17. see, generally, Simester & Sullivan, op. cit., 631-639, fn. 7
18. C.M.V. Clarkson, 'Necessary Action: A New Defence', (2004) Crim. LR 81
19. W. Wilson, Central Issues in Criminal Theory (2002) 293-323.
20. Re A: Conjoined Twins: Surgical Operation [2001] Fam 147.
21. Shayler [2001] 1 WLR 2206.
22. Shayler, para. 55. Pleading the defence as one of duress of circumstances, however, would run into problems in relation to murder owing to the denial of the defence to murder in Howe [1987] AC 417, where claiming necessity would not. Re A was a case which involved, sadly, the necessity of deciding on whether doctors could undertake an operation to save one twin but which would inevitably lead to the death of the other rather than allow both to die. The Court of Appeal (rightly, in my view, although reasonable people disagree on this matter) decided that they could, partially on the basis of a defence of necessity.
23. See, for example, Clarkson, loc. cit., fn. 8, 81-82.
24. He did determine, nonetheless, that the defendants were entitled to plead that they were acting to prevent war crimes, which had been incorporated into UK domestic law by the International Criminal Court Act 2001, Judgment, para. 6.
25. Judgment, para. 6.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., para. 7.
28. Ibid., para. 8.
29. See, for example, R v Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [No 3], Amnesty International Intervening [1999] 2 All ER 97
30. R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte Abassi [2002] EWCA Civ 1598
31. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom & Others [2002] EWHC 2759
32. and Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883.
33. Although for a critique of the decision from the point of view of domestic criminal law, see D. Ormerod, 'Criminal Damage: Defendants Damaging Property at Operational Military Airbase', (2005) Crim. LR 122.
34. [1985] AC 374, p. 398. See also Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763. On the traditional reluctance of states to subject the use of force to judicial determination,
35. see C. Antonopoulos, 'Whatever Happened to Crimes Against Peace?', (2001) 6 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 33, 54-56.
36. The upturn in ICJ cases dealing with the use of force, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and NATO cases, may show a new willingness on the part of some states to use international courts to deal with those matters. But see C. Gray, 'The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases on the Use of Force After Nicaragua', (2003) 14 EJIL 867.
37. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others [2002] EWHC 2759.
38. See C. Warbrick, 'International Law in English Courts - Recent Cases', (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 815, 821-824.
39. As reported in Judgment, para. 9.
40. A (FC) and others (FC), X (FC) and another (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56.
41. [1935] AC 462, 481. See, generally, Simester & Sullivan, op. cit., fn. 7, 63-70.
42. (1950) ETS No. 5. It might be noted that article 6(2) is largely modelled on Woolmington. The United Kingdom has ratified both of these instruments and has provided for the applicability of the standards contained in the European Convention through the Human Rights Act 1998.
43. 999 UNTS 171.
44. Mancini v DPP [1941] AC 1
45. see Simester & Sullivan, op. cit., fn. 7, 64.
46. See, for example, High Command Trial XII LRTWC 1, 68-69
47. I.G. Farben Trial X LRTWC 1, 37-39
48. Krupp Trial X LRTWC 69, 127-128.
49. See, for example, the General Assembly's Definition of Aggression, as set out in article 3(g), General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) 1974. However, note that article 5(2) separates acts of aggression and wars of aggression.
50. For example, see A. Cassese, 'The Status of Rebels Under the 1977 Geneva Protocol on Non-International Armed Conflicts', (1981) 30 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 416, 417.
51. The prosecution did not appeal against Grigson J's decision that the defendants could plead that they were acting to prevent crimes incorporated into UK law by the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
52. Judgment, para. 14.
53. Although an argument can be made that essentially all international crimes are indeed mala in se.
54. G. Williams, 'The Definition of Crime', (1955) 8 Current Legal Problems 107.
55. Ibid., 123.
56. See, for example, Simester & Sullivan, op. cit., fn. 7, 1-5.
57. Proprietary Articles Trade Association v A-G for Canada [1931] AC 310 at 324
58. see Judgment, para. 15.
59. Judgment, para. 17.
60. Judgment, para. 18.
61. HL Hansard, 2 December 1963, col. 831.
62. UK Ministry of Defence, Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004) 425.
63. See, generally, P. Rowe & M.A. Meyer, 'The Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995: A Generally Minimalist Approach', (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 476.
64. See, generally, D.J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (6th edn., 2004) 72-91.
65. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book 4 (1769) 66.
66. [1977] 1 QB 529.
67. [1988] 3 WLR 1033.
68. [1934] AC 586. It did, however, miss one possible other example of the direct prosecution of an international crime in the United Kingdom, a conviction of providing unfit food to French Prisoners of War in Treeve's Case, 27 April 1796, 2 East's Pleas of the Crown 821.
69. Judgment, para. 30.
70. Pinochet [No 3], fn. 18, loc. cit.
71. R. O'Keefe, 'Customary Crimes in English Courts', (2001) 72 British Yearbook of International Law 293, 300-301.
72. Ibid., 301-315.
73. Judgment, para. 24.
74. In re Piracy Jure Gentium, 600.
75. Simester & Sullivan, op. cit., fn. 7, 40-44.
76. Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397, para. 52.
77. See, generally, B. Emmerson & A. Ashworth, Human Rights and Criminal Justice (2001) 281-292. For a useful discussion of the principles in the area with specific reference to international crimes,
78. see M. Shahabuddeen, 'Does the Principle of Legality Stand in the Way of Progressive Development of the Law?', (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1007.
79. Veeber v Estonia (No 2) Application no. 45571/99, Judgment, of 21 January 2003, para. 31.
80. See, for example, Emmerson & Ashworth, op. cit., fn. 55, 284-285.
81. (1976) 1 EHRR 739.
82. Ibid.
83. (1999) 27 EHRR 464.
84. [1999] ECHR 133.
85. Shahabuddeen, op. cit., fn. 55, 1017.
86. See, generally, G. Gilbert, 'The Criminal Responsibility of States', (1990) 39 ICLQ 345
87. N.H.B. Jørgensen, The Responsibility of States for International Crimes (2000)
88. K. Marek, 'Criminalising State Responsibility', (1978-1979) 14 Revue Belge de Droit Internationale 460.
89. J. Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002) 16-20, 35-38.
90. H. Ehard, 'The Nuremberg Trial Against the Major War Criminals and International Law', (1949) 43 AJIL 223, 236-239
91. H. Kelsen, 'Will the Judgment in the Nuremberg Trial Constitute a Precedent in International Law?', (1947) 1 ICLQ 153, 155-158.
92. One of the few who are prepared to defend the criminality of aggression before 1945 is B.B. Ferencz, 'The Crime of Aggression', in G. Kirk McDonald & O. Swaak-Goldman (eds.), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law (2000) 33.
93. In other words, the sense in which John Smith, and the Court of Appeal used it.
94. The definition being 'planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishing of any of the foregoing'; 1945 London Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 UNTS 279.
95. The Trial of German Major War Criminals: Vol I (London, HMSO, 1946), 81-82.
96. To the extent that crimes can ever be fully defined, given the necessary ambiguity of language that renders complete determinacy a shibboleth; G. de Burca & S. Gardner, 'The Codification of the Criminal Law', (1990) 10 OJLS 559, 560.
97. M. Boot, Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity: Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and the Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (2002) 138-139, 437-448, 439, 157.
98. 13 ILR 297. It might be noted that Sandrock (better known as the 'Almelo Trial') was a trial for war crimes rather than aggression.
99. Judgment, para. 34.
100. Judgment, para. 8.
101. Judgment, paras 42-43.
102. An excellent study on the practice of courts and tribunals on aggression was drafted by the Secretariat: Historical Review of Developments Relating to Aggression PNICC/2002/WGCA/L.1 and Add.1.
103. See, for example, Q. Wright, 'The Concept of Aggression in International Law', (1935) 29 AJIL 373
104. C. Eagleton, 'The Attempt to Define Aggression', (1930) 264 International Conciliation 577.
105. On the pre-history of aggression see e.g. B. B. Ferencz, 'The Crime of Aggression' in Gabrielle Kirk McDonald and Olivia Swaak-Goldman (eds.), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law (2000) 37, 38-43.
106. The Trial of German Major War Criminals, op. cit., fn. 68, 82.
107. Nuremberg IMT, 'Judgment and Sentence', (1947) 41 AJIL 172, 216-220.
108. Article 5(a) of the Charter of the IMT for the Far East 2 Bevans 20. Article 5(a) of the Tokyo IMT Charter referred to a 'declared or undeclared war of aggression', but the Tokyo IMT treated the law as the same; see Historical Review of Developments Relating to Aggression, op. cit., fn. 75, 85-88.
109. Tokyo IMT Judgment, Transcript, 48, 437-48, 439.
110. These were, inter alia, those against the United Kingdom, the United States, Netherlands and China.
111. Dissenting Opinion of Röling, 33-50.
112. Dissenting Opinion of Pal, 69-153.
113. Ibid., 227-279.
114. Ibid., 233.
115. Ibid., 251b.
116. Although he was not entirely consistent, see R. Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime (2005) 207.
117. I.G. Farben X LRTWC 1, 30-40
118. Krupp X LRTWC 69, 102-130
119. High Command XII LRTWC 1, 65-71
120. Greiser XIII LRTWC 70, 108-110
121. Sakai XIV LRTWC 1-7
122. von Weizaecker XIV Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals 308, 323-435.
123. GA Res. 95 (I), UN doc. A/64/Add.1.
124. I. Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force (1963) 191, 193.
125. GA Res. 3314, UN doc. A/9631, article 5(2). See, for comment, J. Stone, 'Hopes and Loopholes in the Definition of Aggression', (1977) 71 AJIL 224.
126. More positively, see B. Ferencz, 'Defining Aggression: Where It Stands and Where It's Going', (1972) 66 AJIL 491
127. B. Ferencz, 'Defining Aggression - The Last Mile', (1973) 12 Columbia Journal of International Law 430
128. B. Ferencz, 'The United National Consensus Definition of Aggression: Sieve or Substance?', (1975) 10 Journal of International Law and Economics 701.
129. See, for example, Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (3rd edn., 2001) 115
130. S.A. Fernández de Gurmendi, 'The Working Group on Aggression at the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court', (2001-2002) 25 Fordham International Law Journal 589, 591.
131. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-Sixth Session 2 May-22 July 1994 UN GAOR 49th Sess. Supp No. 10, UN doc. A/49/10.
132. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-Eighth Session 6 May-26 July 1996, UN GAOR 51st Sess. Supp No. 10, UN doc. A/51/10.
133. For critique, see R. Rayfuse, 'The Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind: Eating Disorders at the International Law Commission', (1997) 8 Criminal Law Forum 43.
134. See, for example, L.S. Sunga, The Emerging System of International Criminal Law (1997) chaps 1-3. On other issues, I have doubts about the customary status of the Code;
135. see R. Cryer, 'General Principles of Liability in International Criminal Law', in D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe & E. Donnelly (eds.), The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues (2003) 233, 244-245.
136. See Cryer, Prosecuting International Crimes, op. cit., fn. 88, 236-237.
137. See, for example, H. von Hebel & D. Robinson, 'Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court', in R.S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: Issues, Negotiations, Results (1999) 79, 81-85
138. M. Politi & G. Nesi (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (2004).
139. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, A/Conf.183/9*, on which see A. Zimmermann, 'Article 5', in O. Triffterer (ed.), The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Article by Article (1999) 97, 102-106.
140. See, generally, M. Schuster, 'The Rome Statute of an International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression: A Gordian Knot in Search of a Sword', (2003) 14 Criminal Law Forum 1
141. A. Schabas, 'The Unfinished Work of Defining Aggression', in D. McGoldrick, P. Rowe & E. Donnelly (eds.), The Permanent International Criminal Court: Legal and Policy Issues (2003), 123
142. D.T. Ntanda-Nsereko, 'Defining the Crime of Aggression: An Important Agenda Item for the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court', [2003] Acta Juridica 256.
143. On which see O. Triffterer, 'Article 10', in O. Triffterer (ed.), The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Article by Article (1999), 315.
144. For differing views on the role of article 10, see L. Sadat, 'Custom, Codification and Some Thoughts About the Relationship Between the Two: Article 10 of the ICC Statute', (2000) 49 De Paul Law Review 909, 919,
145. contra, K.S. Gallant, 'Jurisdiction to Adjudicate and Jurisdiction to Prescribe in International Criminal Courts', (2003) 48 Villanova Law Review 763, 818-819.
146. E. Wilmshurst, 'Definition of the Crime of Aggression: State Responsibility or Individual Criminal Responsibility', in M. Politi & G. Nesi (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (2004), 93, 96.
147. Assembly of States Parties Resolution, 'Continuity of Work With Respect to the Crime of Aggression' ICC/ASP/1/Res.1.
148. PNICC/2002/2/Add.2.3.
149. See, generally, R.S. Clark, 'Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court', (2002) 15 LJIL 859.
150. Some delegations in the Prepcom, however, considered that the two linked to the extent to which they had to be discussed together; see Fernández de Gurmendi, op. cit., fn. 93, 590.
151. Clark, op. cit., fn. 105, 862.
152. For which it has been, quite rightly, criticised; see Ntanda-Nsereko, op. cit., 278, fn. 100.
153. S. Mirzaee Yengejeh, 'Reflections on the Role of the Security Council in Determining an Act of Aggression', in M. Politi & G. Nesi (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (2004) 125, 131
154. M. Lehto, 'The ICC and the Security Council: About the Argument of Politicization', in M. Politi & G. Nesi (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (2004) 145, 148-149.
155. Judgment, para. 43.
156. As the Court of Appeal was seeking to determine whether there was a customary rule capable of operating to create a crime in the UK legal order.
157. Judgment, para. 8.
158. A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (2003) 114. Ntanda-Nsereko provides a rather broader definition;
159. see Ntanda-Nsereko, op. cit., 277, fn. 100.
160. On which see C. Kress, 'The German Chief Federal Prosecutor's Decision Not to Investigate the Alleged Crime of Preparing Aggression Against Iraq', (2003) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 245.
161. The letter was reproduced in The Independent, 24 March 2005.
162. Attorney General's advice, 7 March 2003, paras 33-35.
163. The case is currently on appeal to the House of Lords, and a decision is expected by the end of 2005.