i) La agresión internacional y el uso ilegal de la fuerza armada desde el final de la Primera Guerra Mundial hasta nuestros días.
 La agresión y el uso ilegal de la fuerza armada desde el final de la Primera Guerra Mundial hasta nuestros días. Radio Nizkor, 16sep13 |
Este programa hace un recorrido por los casi 100 años de historia de la actividad jurídica y política en torno a la prohibición del uso ilegal de la fuerza armada.
Radio Nizkor ha recurrido a dos breves trabajos de Benjamin Ferencz, Fiscal Jefe en Nuremberg en el caso Einsatzgruppen y activo defensor de la paz, para trazar este recorrido…
“La génesis del derecho penal internacional moderno tuvo lugar en el ínterin entre las dos guerras. Al término de la Gran Guerra, las potencias aliadas convocaron una comisión especial de expertos en derecho internacional que abordara la cuestión de la responsabilidad penal. Esta Comisión “emitió un informe que incluía a 850 criminales de guerra y enumeraba 32 actividades que constituían crímenes de guerra. Preparando el camino hacia el Tratado de Versalles, el informe aseveraba que ‘todas las personas pertenecientes a los países enemigos… halladas culpables de crímenes contra las leyes y usos de la guerra o las leyes de la humanidad, son susceptibles de persecución penal’”.
“El Tratado de Versalles de 1919, sirvió a dos propósitos básicos. Incorporó el Pacto de la Sociedad de Naciones, la institución diseñada para establecer un orden mundial pacífico, y, formuló los términos de la paz prescritos por los aliados victoriosos. La proyección a largo plazo de la Liga se vio coartada por la falta de ratificación del Tratado por parte del Senado de los Estados Unidos y la negativa a unirse a la misma. El Tratado moldeaba además una paz insostenible”.
“El Pacto y el Tratado de Versalles fueron citados, junto a muchos otros tratados, por el Tribunal de Nuremberg y sus fiscales para fundamentar el hecho de que el cargo de agresión era concordante con el derecho internacional en vigor así como con los principios de un juicio justo”.
“Después de Versalles, Francia entabló negociaciones bilaterales con los Estados Unidos para restaurar las relaciones entre antiguos aliados, las cuales se habían visto erosionadas en gran parte debido a la negativa de Estados Unidos de perdonar a Francia su deuda de guerra, lo que, en sí mismo, estaba relacionado con las reparaciones alemanas vinculadas al Tratado. Estas negociaciones supusieron un punto de inflexión en la proscripción de la fuerza armada. El pacto multilateral Kellogg-Briand de 1928, firmado fuera del marco de la Sociedad de Naciones por Alemania, Francia, los Estados Unidos y más de 60 países adicionales, ilegalizó el uso de la fuerza como forma de arreglo de las controversias internacionales”.
“En los juicios de Nuremberg en 1946 la conducción de guerras de agresión fue indeleblemente calificada como “el crimen supremo internacional”. Las Naciones Unidas reafirmaron los principios de Nuremberg y sus comisiones comenzaron el trabajo hacia la creación de una nueva Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) para contribuir al mantenimiento de la paz futura. Medio siglo después, en 1998, en Roma, el estatuto por el que se establecía la CPI recibía la abrumadora aclamación de 120 países. Tras una rápida ratificación, la Corte devino operativa en 2002. Únicamente fue autorizada para ocuparse de genocidio, crímenes contra la humanidad, crímenes de guerra y del crimen de agresión. Sin embargo, varias de las grandes potencias no estaban preparadas para aceptar ningún tipo de revisión judicial internacional que afectara a lo que perciben como su derecho soberano a hacer la guerra; las mismas vacilaciones siguieron predominando en la conferencia de revisión del Estatuto de Roma celebrada en Kampala, Uganda, en 2010. Si bien el crimen de agresión fue redefinido por consenso, la consideración de la jurisdicción de la CPI sobre el mismo se vio de nuevo pospuesta a algún momento posterior a 2017. El crimen de agresión sigue pendiendo de un limbo jurídico. El derecho adolece de una peligrosa laguna al respecto.
El objetivo principal es la disuasión. Si ningún tribunal es competente para enjuiciar a los agresores lo más probable es que el crimen de agresión se vea fomentado en lugar de desalentado… La nimiedad jurídica favorece la evasión. El uso ilegal de la fuerza armada debería ser sancionable bajo la categoría de “otros actos inhumanos” dentro del alcance de la prohibición de crímenes contra la humanidad realizada por la CPI… “[A]quellos dirigentes quienes, sin justificación legal y sin que concurran los requeridos conocimiento e intencionalidad, sean responsables de previsibles bajas de civiles a gran escala, debieran ser acusados de crímenes contra la humanidad y sometidos a un juicio justo ante un tribunal competente, ya sea nacional o internacional…” |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| cah1 | Haz click en el icono  | Haz click en el icono  | 00:49:43 | ESL/SPA |
ii) La cuestión de la agresión militar.
| ONU/CPI – La cuestión de la agresión militar. (Por Benjamin B. Ferencz). Radio Nizkor, 06ene12 |
“Ha llovido mucho desde Nuremberg y aún queda mucho camino por recorrer.
La esperanza es el motor que impulsa el empeño humano. Después de que 20 millones de personas perdieran la vida en la Primera Guerra Mundial, los diplomáticos de la Liga de Naciones reconocieron la necesidad de borrar la guerra como instrumento de política nacional. Recomendaron que, en el futuro, las guerras de agresión debieran ser castigadas como crimen internacional, a lo que las potencias respondieron: “Todavía no es el momento oportuno”. 50 millones más de personas perecieron en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Como respuesta, se creó en Nuremberg un Tribunal Militar Internacional para juzgar a los dirigentes alemanes responsables de crímenes contra la paz (agresión), crímenes contra la humanidad y crímenes de guerra. [...]
En diciembre de 1946 las Naciones Unidas confirmaron los principios de Nuremberg y sus sentencias. Se instruyó a la Comisión [de Derecho Internacional] para que preparara un proyecto de Código de Crímenes contra la Paz y la Seguridad de la Humanidad, incluido el crimen de agresión, y que fuera diseñando una jurisdicción penal internacional permanente para el enjuiciamiento de los perpetradores. [...]
El mandato de 1946 de definir el crimen de agresión fue finalmente aprobado por la Asamblea General de la ONU el 14 de diciembre de 1974 como Resolución 3314. En aras del consenso, se insertaron cláusulas de última hora en el sentido de que la definición no sería más que una guía no vinculante para el Consejo de Seguridad, órgano al que se le otorgó una amplia discrecionalidad a la hora de determinar si un acto de agresión se había producido realmente. [...]
En 1996, los 34 miembros de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional completaron la redacción de un código de crímenes internacionales en el que se favorecía la definición original de Nuremberg. Ciento ochenta y cinco naciones… conformaron comités en el seno de las Naciones Unidas para pergeñar un tribunal penal internacional permanente. Cientos de cuestiones abiertas permanecieron pendientes de solución al cabo de una conferencia final de plenipotenciarios que duró 4 semanas y que se celebró en Roma en el verano de 1998. En un clímax inolvidable, cuando ya el tiempo oficial se había agotado, el Presidente Philippe Kirsch anunció la aprobación del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI). [...]
Se llegó a un compromiso de última hora según el cual la agresión entraría en la lista de los cuatro crímenes principales, si bien la CPI no podría ejercer su jurisdicción sobre este crimen hasta que no se reunieran algunas condiciones específicas. Tendría que llegarse a una definición aceptable, así como a una confirmación clara de que se respetarían las disposiciones de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas (esto es, las prerrogativas del Consejo de Seguridad)… Se establecieron Grupos de Trabajo Especiales de la Asamblea de Estados Partes (AEP) para satisfacer los requisitos de activación de la jurisdicción de la CPI sobre este “supremo crimen internacional”. [...]
Se avanzó en una definición revisada, pero el acuerdo sobre el papel del Consejo de Seguridad no se vislumbraba en el horizonte. Cuando la Conferencia de Revisión [del Estatuto de Roma] comenzó en Kampala, Uganda, el 31 de mayo de 2010, una definición mejorada aclaró la distinción entre el crimen de agresión cometido por una persona… y el acto de agresión cometido por un estado… Se añadieron nuevos obstáculos al requerir el acuerdo de 30 Estados Partes y la aprobación por al menos dos tercios de todas las partes para que una enmienda resulte vinculante. Nadie podría ser juzgado por agresión hasta 2017 como pronto, año en que la AEP someterá esta cuestión a ulterior consideración.
El Estatuto de Roma es un contrato voluntario en forma de tratado al que los estados prestan su consentimiento. Estos estados no están obligados a vincularse por algo que no hayan aceptado. Como garantía hacía las naciones que no querían vincularse, las enmiendas adoptadas en Kampala estipulan que los Estados Partes pueden optar previamente por su no sujeción al crimen de agresión. [...]
Así que, ¿qué podemos esperar del futuro?… Permitir que los agresores sigan inmunes frente a la acción de la CPI no ejerce efecto disuasorio alguno sobre las guerras ilegales, sino que más bien las favorece…. El escepticismo puede ser comprensible, pero no justifica la inacción. Los obstáculos inevitables y temporales no debieran oscurecer el progreso y la necesidad de cambio…”
Benjamin B. Ferencz fue Fiscal en los juicios de Nuremberg y es un infatigable defensor del estado de derecho internacional y del establecimiento de una corte penal internacional. |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| agresion | Haz click en el icono | Haz click en el icono | 00:14:42 | ESL/SPA |
iii) El crimen de agresión y la guerra en Siria.
| Syr – El crimen de agresión y la guerra en Siria. Radio Nizkor, 06ago12 |
La Conferencia de Revisión del Estatuto de Roma celebrada en junio de 2010 en Kampala, Uganda, ha supuesto una limitada contribución a la historia del derecho internacional y, especialmente, a la de los derechos humanos y la paz.
En Kampala quedó reflejado en forma transparente que numerosos estados no estaban dispuestos a llegar a una definición de crimen de agresión (crímenes contra la paz) para su incorporación al Estatuto de la Corte Penal Internacional y, menos aún, a que esta Corte tuviera jurisdicción sobre este delito que es considerado el más grave en la escala del derecho penal internacional, por encima incluso de los crímenes contra la humanidad…
Si bien finalmente se llegó a un acuerdo sobre tal definición, hay que señalar que las negociaciones para incluir la definición de crimen de agresión en el Estatuto de Roma se remontaban a más de una década, y durante todo este proceso, y después en su fase final en Kampala, el Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos se erigió en uno de los líderes de opinión, valga la expresión, para llevar adelante la oposición frontal a la incorporación de tal definición al Estatuto de la Corte…
No obstante, la mayor sorpresa estaba aún por llegar cuando el Departamento de Estado, en sesión informativa sobre la Conferencia de Kampala ofrecida por el Embajador Extraordinario para Asuntos de Crímenes de Guerra, Stephen J. Rapp, y un asesor jurídico del Departamento, Harold Hongju Koh, explicitó que eran muchas las organizaciones de derechos humanos que apoyaban la postura del Departamento de Estado, y, entre otras, hicieron mención explícita a Human Rights Watch y al Open Society Institute, así como a la carta encabezada por éste último y suscrita por unas 40 organizaciones no gubernamentales en contra de la incorporación de la definición de crimen de agresión…
Este hecho vino a confirmar la disrupción provocada entre los organismos internacionales de derechos humanos por los atentados del 11-S y el posterior estado de excepción global que vino a dar al traste con los paradigmas éticos que sostenían la lucha por las libertades civiles y la aplicación del derecho internacional como forma de mantener la paz…
Estas organizaciones rompieron con ello una tradición que, en algunos casos, se remontaba a las revoluciones republicanas, especialmente la francesa… En definitiva, perdieron la legitimidad para hablar de paz y, menos aún, de crímenes de guerra, como se evidenció en el conflicto georgiano, respecto del cual Human Rights Watch realizó un informe sobre la guerra que carecía de sustentación en los hechos reales. Lo mismo ocurrió con los informes de Amnistía Internacional durante la guerra de Libia y ahora está ocurriendo con la Guerra de Agresión en Siria.
Es un desafío a la inteligencia el que Estados Unidos, Francia, Reino Unido, España y la OTAN nos quieran imponer como adalides de la libertad a los guerreros de la Yihad o que nos quieran imponer mediante operaciones de imagen muy organizadas y muy costosas que Qatar y Arabia Saudita luchan por la democracia y la libertad…
En consecuencia, el discurso de que se lucha contra tiranos se convierte en un discurso falso y que no tiene sustento racional posible… Este hecho resulta evidente en el caso de la Guerra de Iraq, la cual convirtió a este país en un estado inviable inducido a la lucha racial, habiéndose recurrido para ello a operaciones de contra inteligencia al mejor estilo nacionalsocialista, calcadas de las que usaron los nazis en el Este de Europa y mediante las cuales, los guerreros de la Yihad entrenados por los oficiales de contra inteligencia británicos y estadounidenses e integrados en Al Qaeda, se han convertido en los nuevos dirigentes sociales y políticos, como sucede en Libia.
El derecho internacional y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas se han convertido en el objetivo de la políticas militaristas de nuevo cuño que, aunque preexistentes, el atentado del 11-S catalizó a través de las teorías del terrorismo como nuevo enemigo…
En este momento en Siria hay un grupo de países que están poniendo al mundo al borde de una guerra nuclear, ya que para el ataque indirecto promovido por Estados Unidos y la OTAN mediante la interposición de Qatar y Arabia Saudita -y que está dirigido desde bases militares en Turquía- se financia y se arma a paramilitares con una estrategia militar muy parecida a la utilizada por los militares estadounidenses y argentinos en las guerras en Centroamérica, en la época en que John Negroponte era embajador en Honduras…
Todavía estamos a tiempo de hacer frente a este militarismo irracional y a esta gigantesca operación de contra inteligencia que pretende consolidar un estado de excepción global, donde las libertades son reemplazadas por una verdadera contra reforma religiosa liderada por estados absolutistas donde sólo importa el origen racial y la religión. |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| syria1 | Haz click en el icono | Haz click en el icono | 00:12:41 | ESL/SPA |
**In English**iv) Aggression and illegal armed force from post WWI until today.
| Aggression and illegal armed force from post WWI until today. Radio Nizkor, 19Jul13 |
This program traces the legal and political activity regarding the prohibition of the illegal use of armed force, which dates back almost one hundred years now. For its preparation, Radio Nizkor has resorted to two short works by Benjamin B. Ferencz, former Nuremberg prosecutor and lifetime advocate for peace…
“The genesis of modern international criminal law occurred in the interim between the two wars. At the conclusion of the Great War, the Allied Powers convened a special commission of international law experts to address criminal responsibility.”. This commission “issued a Report naming over 850 suspected war criminals and enumerating 32 activities constituting war crimes. Leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, the report asserted that ‘all persons belonging to enemy countries … who have been guilty of offenses against the laws and customs of war or the laws of humanity, are liable to criminal prosecution.’”
“The Treaty of Versailles, 1919, served two basic purposes. It included the Covenant of the League of Nations, the institution designed to establish a pacific world order, and it established the terms of the peace as dictated by the victorious Allies. The long term prospects of the League were not helped by the U.S. Senate’s failure to ratify the Treaty and unwillingness to ever join. The Treaty also formed an untenable peace.”
“The Pact and the Treaty of Versailles were cited along with many other treaties by the Nuremberg Tribunal and prosecutors to justify the aggression charge as being consistent with existing international law as well as the principles of fair trial.”.
“In the aftermath of Versailles, France initiated bilateral negotiations with the United States to rehabilitate relations between the former allies eroded in large part because of the United States’ unwillingness to forgive France’s war debt, which, itself, was linked to German reparations due to the Treaty. These negotiations resulted in a turning point for the proscription of armed force. The multilateral Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, signed outside the League of Nations framework by Germany, France, the U.S. and over sixty other countries, outlawed the use of force for the settlement of international disputes.”
“At the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, the waging of aggressive war was indelibly branded as ‘the supreme international crime.’ The United Nations affirmed the Nuremberg principles and UN committees began creating a new International Criminal Court (ICC) to help maintain future peace. Half a century later, in 1998, in Rome, an enabling statute for an ICC was overwhelmingly acclaimed by 120 nations. After speedy ratification, the Court became operational in 2002. It was authorized to deal only with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. However, several major powers were not prepared to accept any international judicial review of their perceived sovereign right to wage war; the same hesitations still prevailed at an amendment conference in Kampala, Uganda in 2010. Although aggression was re-defined by consensus, jurisdiction by the ICC was again postponed for consideration at some later date after 2017. The crime of aggression still hangs in legal limbo. There is a dangerous gap in the law.
Deterrence is the primary goal. If no court is competent to try aggressors, the crime is more likely to be encouraged than deterred… Legal quibbling encourages evasions. Illegal use of armed force should be punishable as ‘other inhumane acts’ within the meaning of the ICC prohibition of crimes against humanity… [T]hose leaders who, without lawful justification and with the requisite knowledge and intent, are responsible for foreseeable large scale civilian casualties, should be accused of crimes against humanity and held accountable by fair trial in a competent national or international court of law.” |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| cah | Click on icon | Click on icon | 00:43:37 | ENG |
v) “What of Military Aggression?.”
| ICC/UN – “What of Military Aggression?”. (Article by Benjamin B. Ferencz). Radio Nizkor, 05Jan12 |
“We have come a long way from Nuremberg, and have miles to go before we sleep
Hope is the engine that drives human endeavour. After some 20 million people were killed in WW1, League of Nations diplomats recognized the need to eliminate war as an instrument of national policy. They advised that future wars of aggression should be punished as an international crime. The common response from powerful states was: ‘The time is not yet ripe.’ An additional 50 million victims perished in WW2. In response, an International Military Tribunal was set up in Nuremberg to try German leaders responsible for crimes against peace (aggression), crimes against humanity, and war crimes. [...]
In December 1946, the UN affirmed the Nuremberg principles and judgement. Committees were directed to draft a Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, including the crime of aggression, and to plan for a permanent international criminal jurisdiction to try offenders. [...]
The UN, of course, could not exist in a political vacuum… The veto-wielding powers in the Council proved unable ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.’ [...]
The 1946 mandate to define the crime of aggression was finally approved by the UN General Assembly, on December 14th, 1974, as Resolution 3314. To achieve consensus, last-minute clauses were inserted to the effect that the definition was only a non-binding guide to the Security Council, which was given wide latitude to determine whether an act of aggression had indeed occurred. [...]
A code of international crimes was completed in 1996 by the 34-member International Law Commission that favoured the original Nuremberg definition. One hundred eighty-five nations… formed UN committees to fashion a permanent international criminal tribunal. Hundreds of open questions were left to be resolved during a final four-week conference of plenipotentiaries in Rome in the summer of 1998. In an unforgettable climax, after the official time had expired, Chairman Philippe Kirsch announced that the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC) had been approved. [...]
A last-minute compromise was accepted, where aggression would be listed as one of the four core crimes, although the ICC could not exercise its jurisdiction over that crime until and unless certain specified conditions could be met. There would have to be an acceptable definition, as well as clear confirmation that UN Charter provisions (meaning Security Council rights) would be respected. The Rome Statute… went into effect on July 1st, 2002. Special Working Groups of the Assembly of State Parties (ASP) set out to meet the requirements for activating ICC jurisdiction over ‘the supreme international crime.’
A Special Working Group laboured long and mightily to meet the preconditions laid down at Rome. Progress was made on a revised definition, but agreement on the role of the Security Council was nowhere in sight. When the Review Conference began in Kampala, Uganda, on May 31st, 2010, an improved definition clarified the distinction between the crime of aggression by an individual… and an act of aggression by a state… New hurdles were added by requiring agreement by 30 states, and approval by at least two-thirds of all parties before an amendment would become binding. No one could be tried for aggression until 2017 at the earliest – at which time the ASP would consider the matter further.
The Rome Statute is a voluntary contract in treaty form entered into by consenting states. These states were not obliged to be bound by anything that they did not accept. To reassure nations that did not want to be bound, the amendments adopted in Kampala stipulated that State Parties can elect in advance not to be subject to aggression charges. [...]
So what to expect for the future?… Allowing aggressors to remain immune from prosecution by the ICC surely does not deter illegal war-making, but rather encourages it… To be sure, the long historical record of glorifying war causes many doubts about the utility of trying to alter the way that people think about such vital issues. Skepticism may be understandable, but it does not justify inaction. Unavoidable temporary shortcomings should not obscure progress and the need for change…
Benjamin B. Ferencz was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, and has been a lifetime advocate of the international rule of law and the establishment of an International Criminal Court.” |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| aggression | Click on icon | Click on icon | 00:11:52 | ENG |
vi) International aggression and the war in Syria.
| Syr – International aggression and the war in Syria. Radio Nizkor, 09Jul13 |
The Review Conference of the Rome Statute which took place in 2010 in Kampala, Uganda, has produced a limited, and for many a disappointing, contribution to the history of international law, and, in particular to the history of human rights and peace.
In Kampala it became very clear that various States were not prepared to agree on a definition of the crime of aggression for incorporation into the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and even less disposed to allow that the Court should have jurisdiction over this crime, considered the most serious in the international law hierarchy given that what is at stake is criminal responsibility for the commission of crimes against peace…
Although an agreement was finally reached over this definition, it should be mentioned that… the US State Department emerged as one of the “opinion leaders” and led a frontal opposition, during the whole process, to the incorporation of the definition into the Statute of the Court.
However, the biggest surprise was still to come during a briefing on the ICC Conference in Kampala given by the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Stephen J. Rapp, and a legal advisor from the Department of State, Harold Hongju Koh, where they explained that there were many human rights organisations who shared the State Department’s position. Among others, Mr. Harold Koh specifically mentioned Human Rights Watch and Open Society…
This fact confirmed the disruption which had gone on among international human rights organisations following 9/11 and the subsequent global state of exception which put an end to the ethical paradigms that until then supported the struggle for civil liberties and the application of international law as a means of maintaining peace.
These organisations thus broke a tradition which in some cases commenced with the republican revolutions, in particular, the French Revolution. They have effectively lost any legitimacy to talk about peace, as was shown in the Georgia conflict, in respect of which Human Rights Watch produced a report on the war that was completely unsupported by the facts. Likewise the reports of Amnesty International during the war in Libya…
It is an insult to our intelligence that the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Spain and NATO try to impose Jihad fighters on us as champions of freedom, or that they try to make us believe – with well-organised and extremely expensive PR campaigns – that Qatar and Saudi Arabia fight for democracy and freedom…
As a result, the discourse that they are fighting against tyranny is demonstrably false and lacks any possible rational support. Reality shows us that they are seeking to dismantle countries and destroy their industrial and state infrastructure whilst decisions are being taken outside national parliaments and the entities of Western democratic representation.
This was apparent in the case of the Iraq war, which converted that country into a non-viable state dragged into a racial conflict. This was achieved by resorting to counter-intelligence operations by means of which the Jihad fighters, trained by British and US counter-intelligence officers and integrated into Al Qaeda, became the new social and political leaders, as has likewise occurred in Libya.
Currently in Syria there are a group of countries who are putting the world at risk of nuclear war, while the indirect attack promoted by the US and NATO (interposing Qatar and Saudi Arabia) and run from military bases inside Turkey, is used to finance and arm paramilitaries using a military strategy very like that used by the US and Argentinian armies in the Central American wars during the period in which John Negroponte was ambassador in Honduras…
There is still time to confront the irrational militarism and immense counterintelligence operation which seeks to consolidate a global state of exception where freedoms are replaced by a real religious counter-reformation led by absolutist states where all that matters is racial origin and religion. |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| syria2 | Click on icon | Click on icon | 00:12:50 | ENG |
vii) ICC – Frequently asked questions on the amendments to the Rome Statute of the ICC on the Crime of Aggression (“The Kampala Amendments”).
| ICC – Frequently asked questions on the amendments to the Rome Statute of the ICC on the Crime of Aggression (“The Kampala Amendments”). (Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression, Principality of Liechtenstein). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 01Feb13 |
At the 2010 Kampala Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, States Parties adopted amendments to the Statute on the Crime of Aggression. They adopted a definition of the crime of aggression, contained now in a new article 8 bis to the Rome Statute.
The States Parties thus created a new mechanism to enforce the most important rule of international law: the prohibition on illegal use of force under the United Nations Charter.
In November 2010, the Secretary-General of the United Nations circulated the amendments in order to enable States Parties to ratify or accept them. 30 ratifications, as well as a further decision by States Parties in 2017, are required for the ICC to take up this new function.
As of January 31st, 2012, four States Parties have ratified the amendments on the Crime of Aggression: Liechtenstein, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago and Luxembourg…
In this FAQ you will find answers to questions such as:
- How has the crime of aggression been defined?
- How was the controversial question of the role of the Security Council resolved?
- How do the amendments on aggression affect non-States Parties to the Statute?
- Article 15 bis allows any State Party to opt-out of the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. What are the reasons behind this provision?
- What about new States Parties to the Rome Statute? Do they have a choice of ratifying the “old” or the “new” Statute? or
- What are the policy reasons for which any State would ratify the amendments on the crime of aggression?
|
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| aggression1 | Click on icon | Click on icon | 00:13:26 | ENG |
viii) Icc/Cpi – ICC Rome Statute amended at Review Conference in Kampala so as to include a definition of the crime of aggression.
| Icc/Cpi – ICC Rome Statute amended at Review Conference in Kampala so as to include a definition of the crime of aggression. (Assembly of States Parties to the ICC; Prof. Willian Schabas). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 05Feb11 |
On 11 June 2010, the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) concluded in Kampala, Uganda, after meeting for two weeks, from 31 May to 11 June.
The Review Conference consisted of a meeting of the States Parties to the Rome Statute primarily to consider amendments to the Statute. It toke place pursuant to a requirement under article 123(1) of the Rome Statute that a conference to consider amendments be held seven years after the coming into force of the Statute.
The Review Conference was conducted on a two-track basis, namely: the amendment track and the stocktaking track.
Under the amendment track, States Parties considered limited and specific amendments to the Rome Statute particularly the inclusion of the definition and trigger mechanism for the crime of aggression.
Under the stocktaking track, States Parties, civil society organizations and other stakeholders engaged debate and discussions covering four topics, namely: the impact of the Rome Statute system on victims and affected communities, cooperation, complementarity, and peace and justice.
The Conference adopted a resolution by which it amended the Rome Statute so as to include a definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime.
“[T]he Conference approved the definition of aggression that emerged as a result of the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, together with two understandings (understandings 6 and 7) and Elements of Crimes.
The definition is comprised of two paragraphs, the first establishing that the crime of aggression ‘means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations’, the second providing a detailed seven-paragraph enumeration of acts that qualify as an act of aggression…” |
| File name | Real Media format | Mp3 format | Duration | Language |
| kampala | Click on icon | Click on icon | 00:09:36 | ENG |
ix) A Conference: Freedom from Nuclear Weapons: Through Legal Accountability and Good Faith.
| A Conference: Freedom from Nuclear Weapons: Through Legal Accountability and Good Faith. Radio Nizkor, Jul/Aug 2006. |
The conference “Freedom from Nuclear Weapons – Through Legal Accountability and Good Faith” took place on 6-7 July 2006 in the European Parliament in Brussels. It marked the tenth anniversary of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. In this Opinion, the Court, unanimously decided that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”.
This Conference was organised by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Abolition 2000 Europe, the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and the International Peace Bureau. It was sponsored by MEPs Gisela Kallenbach and Caroline Lucas on behalf of the Green/EFA Group in the European Parliament.
Equipo Nizkor and Radio Nizkor participated by digitally recording and making available online all of the speeches.
Go to the audio documents of the Conference on International Law & Nuclear Weapons. |
x) Interview with Benjamin Ferencz, former Nuremberg Prosecutor and peace advocate.
| Interview with Benjamin Ferencz, former Nuremberg Prosecutor and peace advocate. Radio Nizkor, 30May04. |
 Radio Nizkor has interviewed Benjamin Ferencz on a number of issues which concern the developments and current situation with regard to international law. Benjamin Ferencz is a former Nuremberg Prosecutor and a peace advocate. He is Adjunct Professor of International Law at Pace University and founder of the Pace Peace Center.
We have asked Benjamin Ferencz to tell us about the following:
- His indictment in the Einsatzgruppen case and the “criminal organization” nature of these extermination units.
- His analysis on the current situation surrounding the Internacional Criminal Court.
- About the supreme crime of all international crimes, that is to say, the crime of aggression.
- The US performance of going into war in Iraq leaving aside the UN.
- The problems arising from the deterioration of civil liberties after 9/11, specially in the US.
- Torture in Iraq.
This interview was recorded on May 24, 2004 using a Telos communication system between Radio Nizkor’s studios in Madrid and New Rochelle, NY.
The Real Media format of this file permits the viewing of documents which contain context analysis in synchronization with audio. This is possible through the use of the Real One Player program. More Information. |
| File name | Real Player format | Mp3 format | Time (minutes) | Language |
| ferencz | Click on icon | Click on icon | 00:44:56 | ENG |
Más Información//Further information:
Página especializa sobre derecho internacional y uso ilegal de la fuerza//
Specialized webpage on international law and illegal use of armed force:
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/aggremain.html
Documentos históricos sobre la agresión internacional//
Historic documents on international aggression:
Defining International Aggression – The Search for World Peace.
A Documentary History and Analysis. By Benjamin B. Ferencz.
“Benjamin B. Ferencz, Defining International Aggression:
The Search for World Peace, 2 volumes, Oceana publications,
Dobbs Ferry, New York, 1975″
(Electronic edition prepared by Equipo Nizkor, on March 26, 2013)
http://www.derechos.org/peace/dia/index.html
United Nations Resolution 3314 on the Definition of Aggression
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/aggression.html
General Assembly Official Records (GAOR) pertaining to the question
of defining aggression between 1950 and 1973.
(Compilation prepared by Benjamin B. Ferencz)
http://www.derechos.org/peace/dia/Vol2.html#PartIIIDoc
History of the Definition of Aggression and the
General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX).
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression2.html
Opinion and Judgment of the International Military Tribunal
for the Trial of German Major War Criminals.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/nuremberg/judgment/
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Charter).
http://www.derechos.org/peace/dia/doc/dia47.html
Charter of the Nürnberg International Military Tribunal
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/nuremberg/ncharter.html
London Agreement of August 8th 1945.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/nuremberg/nlondon.html
The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for a General International Organization.
http://www.derechos.org/peace/dia/doc/dia23.html
The Kellogg-Briand Pact.
http://www.derechos.org/peace/dia/doc/dia13.html
The Covenant of the League of Nations.
http://www.derechos.org/peace/dia/doc/dia01.html
Después de Kampala: ratificación de las enmiendas sobre crimen de agresión//
After Kampala: Ratification of the amendments on the Crime of Aggression:
Estado de las ratificaciones a las enmiendad de Kampala
Ratification Status: Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the ICC
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/status.html
El Senado de Uruguay aprobó las enmiendas de Kampala al Estatuto de la CPI
sobre crimen de agresión y crímenes de guerra
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression51.html
Texto del Proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes
del Uruguay para la ratificación de las enmiendas de Kampala
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression53.html
Estado de ratificación e implementación de las Enmiendas de Kampala
sobre el Crimen de Agresión
(Principality of Liechtenstein & Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression)
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression52.html
Informe jurídico de la Asamblea legislativa de la República de Costa Rica
sobre el Proyecto de Ley relativo a la aprobación de las Enmiendas de Kampala
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression55.html
Proyecto de Ley de la Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica
sobre aprobación de las Enmiendas de Kampala relativas al crimen de agresión
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression56.html
Botswana – first African State to ratify Kampala amendments
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression43.html
Statement by the Minister of Defense, Justice and Security of Botswana
on the occasion of the Workshop on Ratification and Implementation of
the Kampala Amendments (Botswana 15 & 16 April 2013)
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression49.html
Germany ratifies crime of aggression amendments
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression44.html
Estonia ratifies amendments on the crime of aggression and article 8
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression41.html
Luxembourg ratifies the Kampala amendments to the Statute of the International Criminal Court
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression39.html
Trinidad and Tobago ratifies amendments to the Rome Statute
on the crime of aggression and article 8
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression34.html
Samoa ratifies amendments on the crime of aggression and article 8
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression31.html
Liechtenstein first country to ratify the Kampala amendments
on the crime of aggression
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression25.html
Conferencia de revisión del Estatuto de la CPI – Kampala, 31may-11jun 2010//
ICC Review Conference – Kampala, 31 May to 11 June 2010
Texto de la resolución sobre crimen de agresión
aprobada en la Conferencia de Revisión del Estatuto de Roma
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/aggression1es.html
Text of the Resolution on Crime of Aggression as Adopted by
the Review Conference of the Rome Statute.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/aggression1en.html
Understandings regarding the amendments to the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court on the Crime of Aggression.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/aggression17.html
U.S. Department of State Briefing on the International Criminal
Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/usbriefing.html
Resolución sobre el principio de complementariedad
aprobada en la Conferencia de Revisión del Estatuto de Roma
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/kampala1.html
Balance sobre el principio de complementariedad realizado
en la Conferencia de Revisión del Estatuto de Roma
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/icc/kampala.html
Jurisprudencia//Jurisprudence:
International Court of Justice Judgment Concerning
Armed Activities on the Territory of The Congo.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/congo.html
International Court of Justice Judgment Concerning Military
and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/aggression/doc/nicaragua.html
Comunicados de Equipo Nizkor y Radio Nizkor sobre guerras recientes//
Equipo Nizkor’s statements on recent wars
The crime of aggression and the war in Syria
http://www.derechos.org/peace/syria/doc/syr2240.html
El crimen de agresión y la guerra en Siria
http://www.derechos.org/peace/syria/doc/syr264.html
Le crime d’agression et la guerre en Syrie
http://www.derechos.org/peace/syria/doc/syr1194.html
The aim of the War on Iraq is to declare a global state of exception
that does away with the United Nations system.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/manifeng.html
Statement on the conflict of Kosovo and NATO’s intervention
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/press/kosovo1e.html |
Derecho Internacional – La trivialización del uso ilegal de la fuerza promovida por los Gobiernos oculta deliberadamente que éste es el crimen más grave que se puede cometer. 
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario