THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND JURISDICTION OVER THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION

During the negotiations of representatives of different countries on the approval of the statute of the International Crime Court (ICC) there was great controversy not only on the definition of “the crime of aggression”, but also on the manner of making the ICC competent to have jurisdiction over this crime. Western countries, particularly the permanent members of the UN Security Council held that the duties related to keeping the peace and security of the world and determining any “act of aggression” were exclusively entrusted to the Security Council and insisted that the competence of the ICC in jurisdiction over “the crime of aggression” must be dependent on prior determination any “act of aggression” by the Security Council. This was of course unacceptable for most other countries who believed the competence of the Security Council in such matters was not exclusive.Some representatives referred to the competence of the UN General Assembly and believed that whenever the Security Council is reluctant or unable to determine any act of aggression, the ICC may ask the General Assembly to address the issue and determine if any act of aggression has occurred by the accused’s country. Another group relied on the capacity of the International court of Justice (ICJ) and said it was the competent authority to determine acts of aggression. There is however a third group the members of which believe the political responsibilities of the Security Council are quite different from the judicial character of the ICC and say that determination of an act of aggression by the ICC is the very essential condition for its independence in judicial proceeding and its efficiency.