Aggression and the Use of Force

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.

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):

Human Rights Committee and U.S.

Above is another example of a Human Rights Committee observations in response to a state's periodic report, which each state submits pursuant to its obligations under the ICCPR. This is the Concluding Observations in response, issued last year, to the most recent Periodic Report of the United States. The Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America, submitted by the U.S. in 2011, to which this document is a response, can be found here.

You may also review here the submissions of the American NGO Human Rights Watch to the Human Rights Committee, criticizing the compliance record of the United States.

Consider whether such reporting, and resulting response from the Human Rights Committee, is effective as a mechanism for mobilizing compliance with state obligations.

Michael Sandel's Justice

As discussed in class, Prof. Michael Sandel's course entitled "Justice" at Harvard is a fantastic introduction to theories of rights and perspectives on moral philosophy, illustrating each with great dilemmas drawn from our current public discourse. Each class is just 25 minutes, and they are both entertaining as well as informative and thought provoking.

You can watch the classes as well as find introductory notes, questions, and reference to the detailed readings, at course website. You can also access and download the video/audio podcasts for each class on iTunes. Below is the first class.