The Definition of Aggression

As we take up the question of the definition of aggression today, for those interested in reading more about the issue, there is a good article on the subject at EJIL: Talk! on the definition the purposes of the Rome Statute of the ICC, which was decided upon at the international conference at Kampala two years ago. As discussed in the blog post, the new definition and associated "understandings" raise many interesting issues involving treaty interpretation.

The Kampala definition itself is as follows:For the purpose of this Statute, “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.

You may also want to look at the full text of UN General Assembly Resolutions 2626 (Declaration on Friendly Relations), and 3314 (Definition of Aggression), that we will discuss in class and are only excerpted in the text.

Russia Rejects Jurisdiction of Int'l Tribunal for Law of the Sea

The Netherlands has commenced proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, for an order that Russia release the Dutch activists that Russia has detained for interfering with Russian energy exploration activity in the Arctic. Russia, however, has refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the tribunal, notwithstanding that it is a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. What legitimate grounds, if any, would it have for doing so?

Derogation and Threats to the Life of the Nation

In the Loveless case which we examine this week, which was an early case considering the latitude for states to derogate from rights obligations during times of national emergency, when the life of the nation is threatened, the Court was quite deferential to the state's interests. In thinking about this, you might be interested in looking at how the House of Lords more recently considered the issue of derogation from rights due to threats to the life of the nation, in A(F.C.) v. the Home Secretary [2004].

The case (you can find the full judgment here) involved the "certification" of the applicants under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001, which permitted the government to detain persons so certified for an indefinite period. The government of the U.K. argued that the law constituted a permitted derogation from its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

As part of the decision, Lord Hoffman considered what "the life of the nation" meant in Art. 15 of the Convention, and wrote as follows (continued below the fold):

Latest Turn in Hijab Debate in Turkey

Following on our recent discussion of the Sahin v. Turkey case, you all might be interested by this news story from yesterday, regarding the reaction to three members of parliament wearing hijab in the parliamentary chamber.