Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:24:47.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alea Iacta Est: The Kampala Amendment on the Crime of Aggression Post-2017: A Response to Koh and Buchwald

Part of: Koh & Buchwald, “The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andreas Zimmermann
Andreas Zimmermann*
Affiliation:
University of Potsdam, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Having embarked in 49 BCE on his long war against Pompey, Julius Caesar reportedly commented “alea iacta est”—events have passed a point of no return. With the adoption and uptake of the Kampala amendment on the crime of aggression the Rubicon has also been crossed with twenty-six states (i.e. merely four less than the required quorum) having ratified the amendment. A significant further number of states have ratified the Rome Statute after the adoption of the Kampala amendment, posing the interesting question whether they ought to be counted towards that quorum.

Type
Symposium on Koh & Buchwald, “The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective”
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 109 , 2015 , pp. 240 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

References

1 Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, de Vita Caesarum, Book I: Divus Iulius, para. 32 (121); the full citation reads: “Tunc Caesar: ‘Eatur’ quo deorum ostenta et inimicorum inquitas vocat. Iacta alea est’, inquit.”

2 Those were, as of December 31, 2015: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Uruguay; for the current list see Amendments on the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, United Nations Treaty Collection. As to possible further forthcoming ratifications of the Kampala amendment on the crime of aggression, see Status of ratification and implementation, The Global Campaign for Ratification and Implementation of the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression.

3 Those are Cabo Verde (Oct. 10, 2011), Côte d´Ivoire (Feb. 15, 2013), Grenada (May 19, 2011), Guatemala (Apr. 2, 2012), Maldives (Sep. 21, 2011), Philippines (Aug. 30, 2011), Republic of Moldova (Oct. 12, 2010), Seychelles (Aug. 10, 2010), St. Lucia (Aug. 18, 2010), State of Palestine (Jan. 2, 2015), Tunisia (Jun. 24, 2011), as well as Vanuatu (Dec. 2, 2011), for the current list, see Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, United Nations Treaty Collection.

4 See Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 31 May-11 June 2010, Official Records.

5 Koh, Harold H. and Buchwald, Todd F., The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective, 109 AJIL 257 (2015)Google Scholar; Pellet, Alain, Response to Koh and Buchwald´s Article: Don Quixote and Sancho Panza Tilt at Windmills, 109 AJIL 557 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Zimmermann, Andreas, Amending the Amendment Provisions of the Rome Statute: The Kampala Compromise on the Crime of Aggression and the Law of Treaties, 10 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 209, 209 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 For a more detailed analysis of this issue, see already Zimmermann, Andreas & Freiburg, Elisa, Art. 15bis, in Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 741, MN 13 (Triffterer, Otto & Ambos, Kai eds., 3rd ed., 2016)Google Scholar.

12 As to the various arguments pro and contra such effect in light of the specificities of the treaty regime set up by the Kampala amendment, see Zimmermann, Andreas, Does 19 + 11 Equal 30?: The Nitty Gritty of the Law of Treaties and the Kampala Amendment to the Rome Statute on the Crime of Aggression, Ejil: Talk! (Nov. 27, 2014)Google Scholar, as well as Zimmermann and Freiburg, supra note 11, at MN 14.

13 See on this issue already Zimmermann, and Freiburg, , Art. 15ter, in Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 765, MN 5 (Triffterer, Otto & Ambos, Kai eds., 3rd ed., 2016)Google Scholar.

14 See inter alia Schmalenbach, Kirsten, Das Verbrechen der Aggression vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof: Ein politischer Erfolg mit rechtlichen Untiefen, 65 Juristenzeitung 745, 751 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Ger.), as well as Zimmermann and Freiburg, supra note 13, MN 5.

15 For further details, see Zimmermann, supra note 6, at 220 et seq.; Ambos, Kai, The Crime of Aggression after the Kampala, 53 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 463, 504 (2010)Google Scholar; Schmalenbach, supra note 14, at 750 et seq.; Zimmermann and Freiburg, supra note 11, at Mn 27.

16 Ambos, supra note 15, at 505; Coracini, Astrid Reisinger, The International Criminal Court´s Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression- at Last…in Reach… Over some, 2 Goettingen J. Int’l L. 745, 777 (2010)Google Scholar; Zimmermann and Freiburg, supra note 11, at MN 29.

17 See mutatis mutandis Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ Rep. 392, para. 63 (Nov. 26), as well as Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, 1998 ICJ Rep. 275, para. 33 (June 11).

18 On this issue, see Zimmermann and Freiburg, supra note 11, at MN 32.

19 See also, McDougall, Carrie, The Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 267 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.