On June 11, 2010, a binding definition of the crime of aggression was finally adopted at the Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala, Uganda. The adopted definition of the crime of aggression in the Rome Statute reflecting on existing practice leads to the assumption that State-like entities which are lacking universal recognition will not be covered by the Court’s jurisdiction of the crime of aggression. The fact that the term ‘State’ was not clearly defined under the Rome Statute gives the first indication of the implied exclusion of State-like entities from the scope of the crime of aggression. On the other hand, the most recent interpretation of the term “State” as provided by the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivers even more persuasive evidence, reinforcing the argument that these entities would not be covered by this amendment. This Article argues that uncertainty or explicit exclusion of these entities are both illegitimate; based on historical, legal and practical analyses respectively. Consequently, for the purpose of amending this illegitimate situation, the Article will examine how to reconcile these entities with the definition of the crime of aggression. It acknowledges that the explicit inclusion of such entities under the definition alongside States, yet, distinguishable from the latter, is the most favorable solution that better serves the wider objectives of international criminal justice and law.
|Number of pages||41|
|Journal||Emory International Law Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2019|