ICC crime of aggression comes into effect without key signatories

UK lobbied for delay in law under which leaders could be prosecuted for going to war

A crime of aggression, under which politicians and military leaders can be held individually responsible for invasions and other major attacks, comes into force at the international criminal court, reviving global legal powers last exercised at the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials of the 1940s.

Claims alleging that armed force has been used against the “sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence” of another state can, from Tuesday, be taken to the tribunal in The Hague.

The new offence cannot, however, be enforced retrospectively over conflicts such as the 2003 Iraq invasion.

There has been international pressure to give the ICC greater powers to pursue those deemed responsible for initiating conflicts.

About 35 countries have so far ratified the amendment bringing it into force, making their leaders liable to prosecution if they start a war. Britain is not among them.

States that have not ratified the crime of aggression could still be referred to the ICC by the UN security council, although the extent of that power is in dispute. Members of the security council are likely to veto any accusation made against them.

The UK, France and Japan were among countries that lobbied to delay the crime being activated on the grounds that there was need for “greater clarity” before it came into force.

Even without prosecutions, supporters of the law hope it will act as a deterrent by making politicians aware of potential international repercussions.

Sheryn Omeri, a London barrister who has worked at the ICC, said: “Symbolically, the aggression amendments and their ratification have had an important normative effect in the sense that there now is a stigma that can be attached to the actions of people even if prosecution, imprisonment or other punishment doesn’t follow.”

Geoffrey Robertson QC, who was a judge at the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, said: “It’s ironic that Britain, which stood so courageously against Hitler, should refuse to ratify the international law against aggression. And it’s ridiculous, at a time when we should be using that very law to denounce Russian aggression, constituted by sending agents with polonium and novichok to kill our citizens.

“The Foreign Office under Boris Johnson vainly tried to sabotage the law’s progress – now it is in force, let us hope that his successor reverses this approach.

“The law will henceforth apply to politicians and generals who give orders to invade. It is not retrospective, so Tony Blair will be safe. Of course, had this law been in force in 2003, it would probably would have deterred him from joining the invasion in Iraq, although George W Bush, with less respect for international law, would doubtless have gone ahead.”

Don Ferencz, an Oxford University academic who runs the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression, said: “That Britain played a leading role at Nuremberg in establishing the principle that world leaders who undertake illegal war-making may be held to account in a court of law is greatly to its credit.

“Yet the fact that it has failed to join the countries which have voluntarily submitted to the international [criminal] court’s jurisdiction over the very same crime seems a clear repudiation of the principle that international law is meant to offer equal justice for all.” Ferencz’s father was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials.

In 2017 a former Iraqi general attempted to launch a private prosecution against Blair in the London courts over the former prime minister’s role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that he had committed the crime of aggression.

The high court judges recognised that a crime of aggression was in the process of being incorporated into international law, but said it did not apply retroactively. They ruled that there was no crime in English law under which Blair could be charged.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “The UK has no plans to ratify the crime of aggression amendments. We believe that the UN security council bears the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and should be the primary body to determine when an act of aggression has occurred.”

In December 2017, the ICC assembly of states parties considered how and when to activate the court’s jurisdiction and confirmed that the court does not have jurisdiction in respect of the territory or nationals of any state that has not accepted the crime of aggression amendments unless there was a UN security council resolution.

Contributor

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
UK calls for 'greater clarity' on ICC's new crime of aggression
Britain among four countries looking to block court’s jurisdiction which could protect likes of Tony Blair from prosecution

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

15, Nov, 2017 @12:30 PM

Article image
ICC asked to relaunch inquiry into Taliban and IS ‘war crimes’
Move shows court’s determination to investigate contemporary as well as past crimes against humanity

Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor

27, Sep, 2021 @10:14 AM

Article image
We're one crucial step closer to seeing Tony Blair at The Hague | George Monbiot
George Monbiot: Desmond Tutu has helped us see the true nature of what the former prime minister did to Iraq and increased pressure for a prosecution

George Monbiot

03, Sep, 2012 @4:30 PM

Article image
Jean-Pierre Bemba sentenced to 18 years in prison by international criminal court
Former DRC vice-president convicted for his part in campaign of rape and murder in Central African Republic from 2002-03

Jason Burke Africa correspondent

21, Jun, 2016 @1:06 PM

Article image
Yugoslavia tribunal closes, leaving a powerful legacy of war crimes justice
The court that put Slobodan Milošević in the dock is to be formally dissolved this week after 24 years and 161 indictments

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

20, Dec, 2017 @12:01 PM

Article image
Senior ICC judges authorise Afghanistan war crimes inquiry
Decision overturns earlier rejection of request to examine actions of US soldiers

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

05, Mar, 2020 @10:04 AM

Article image
Head of ICC says US measures to curb court are unlawful
ICC president condemns US visa restrictions on officials in Afghan war investigation

Jason Burke

24, Jun, 2020 @4:00 AM

Article image
Ugandan ex-child soldier guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity
Landmark ICC judgment met with mixed reactions by former victims of the Lord’s Resistance Army

Jason Burke, Sofi ​Lundin in Gulu and Samuel Okiror in Kampala

04, Feb, 2021 @1:24 PM

Article image
ICC sentences Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army leader to 25 years
Former child soldier Dominic Ongwen committed crimes against humanity as commander in cult

Jason Burke, Africa correspondent, and Samuel Okiror in Kampala

06, May, 2021 @12:09 PM

Article image
ICC prosecutes Islamist militant on groundbreaking gender-based charges
Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud accused of forcing Malian women into sexual slavery

Jason Burke Africa correspondent

12, Apr, 2018 @11:16 AM