Criminal Law: Issues of War, Aggression, and International Jurisdiction in Neighboring Countries

In this issues we will discuss about criminal law and below are the summaries point:- The case involves neighboring countries A, B, and C, with country A declaring war on country B. Key issues include the liability of country A for war and aggression, jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and criminal responsibility of country B. International Criminal Court plays a significant role in dealing with international crimes such as war, aggression, and crimes against humanity.

1
Criminal Law

2
Issues of the Case
Under this case, the important facts include that A, B and C were three neighboring countries.
On 15th October 2018, country A decided to declare a war on country B. Consequently, the
defence forces of country A crossed the border between country A and country B. After this,
they occupied a significant portion of the country B’s territory. On 23rd October, 2018 county B
retaliated. The head of the country B sent their defence forces to fight the defence forces of
country A. Country B also occupied a major portion of country A, which was rich in oil and gas.
Upon this attack, the portion of country B, which was occupied by country A, was given
independence. The countries A and C were not members of the Statute of International Criminal
Court. Country B was a member of the Statute of International Criminal Court.
There are various issues which have arisen from the above facts of the case. The issues are stated
below:
a. Whether country A would liable for war and aggression against country B and country C?
b. Whether the Statute of International Criminal Court possesses jurisdiction over country
A?
c. Whether country B would be subjected to criminal proceedings for war and aggression in
country B?
d. Whether the International Criminal Court possesses jurisdiction over country B?
e. Whether country A can make country B criminally responsible or whether country B
could make country A criminally responsible?
f. Whether country A is subjected to proceedings of criminal nature in country B or whether
country B is subjected to proceedings of criminal nature in country A?
g. Whether country A and country B are under the jurisdiction of the International criminal
court of justice?
Rule under International Criminal Law
The International Criminal Court, commonly abbreviated as (ICC), or the International Court of
Criminal Jurisprudence is an inter governmental association and is a tribunal of various nations.

3
The headquarters of ICC is located at Hague1. This International court possesses the jurisdiction
for the dealing with the international criminals who are accused of crimes, internationally. The
international crimes include genocides, socio economic crimes, crimes against human beings,
war and aggression with different countries. The existing judicial bodies are supported by the aid
and the rules and regulations framed by the International Criminal Court2. The International
Criminal court plays an extensive role when certain ingredients are met with. When the courts
under every country’s judicature fail to impart justice for offences affecting different countries of
the globe, the International criminal Court plays the pivotal role.
Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, there are various important rules and
regulations with regard to the crimes of war and aggression between different states3. According
to the provisions of law under the Statute of International Criminal Court, war is considered a
major crime. This is so, because war causes extensive damage across the state. The lives of all
the animals and human beings, economy of the country and the property of the country become
grossly affected. War is one of deadliest crimes because it includes a grave infringement of the
laws prevalent in the particular state4. Under the body of the international customary law, the law
related to war crimes and aggression, were codified since the twentieth century. Some countries
were members of the International Criminal Court while others were not. Those countries, which
1 Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law: Volume 1: Foundations and General
Part, 6th ed. (New York: OUP Oxford, 2013) 213.
2 John B., Wellinger and Vijay M. Padmanabhan, "Detention operations in contemporary
conflicts: four challenges for the Geneva Conventions and other existing law", American Journal
of International Law 105, no. 2 (2011): 220.
3 M. Cherif Bassiouni, Introduction to international criminal law, 8th ed. (London: Brill Nijhoff,
2012) 79.
4 Tim Allen, Trial justice: The international criminal court and the Lord's Resistance Army, 3rd
ed. (London: Zed Books Ltd., 2013) 68.

4
were the members, it was their duty to promote international peace and security at the
international level between the different countries. There was adoption of major treaties, at this
international criminal court level. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 played key roles in
the forming of the major laws5. After the end of the Second World War, there were major
amendments in international criminal court. It clearly stated that those countries, which started
war with the other would be liable to be punished under the Statute of the International Criminal
Court. To add to this, the country starting the war would be liable to pay compensation for the
damages and the widespread destruction caused to the country. The crimes which were defined
under the International Criminal Courts were based on Nuremberg principles. To add to this, the
Geneva Conventions in 1949 provided a wider definition of war6. It also stated that there would
be prevalence of universal declaration over the commission of such crimes, by any country.
Under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1907, there is prohibition of acts which cause
violence to the life and property of the different states. Under the definition of violence, armed
conflicts, murder of all types, brutal treatments and mutilation are included7. According to the
Rome Convention, the wrongful occupation of the territories of foreign states would be deemed
to be included under the arena of war conflicts. The international court of criminal jurisprudence
possesses the universal jurisdiction upon all the crimes committed in any states of the world8.
The plundering of land rich in minerals and deploying the resources of the foreign countries are
included in the violation of laws. According to Article 8 (2)(a) of the Geneva Convention, It
amounts to the infringement of peace when there is declaration of war upon another. The
5
6 Gerhard Werle and Florian Jessberger, Principles of international criminal law, 6th ed.
(London: OUP Oxford, 2014) 198.
7 Michael P Scharf, "The amnesty exception to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court", The International Criminal Court, 8th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017) 134.
8 Antonio Cassese, Cassese's international criminal law, 5th ed. (London: Oxford university
press, 2013) 123.

5
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) states that war should be go on, on the basis of certain
rules enforced by the Security Council9.
Application of Law
On the basis of the above provisions of law under the Statute of International Court of Criminal
jurisprudence, the laws would be applied in the issues given below:
1. The head of State A would be subjected to criminal proceedings for aggression in State
B. State A would also be liable to criminal proceedings for the crime of war in State B.
But, State A would not be liable for State C. this is so, because State A had not declared
war on State C. So, State C cannot hold State A to be liable for any damage which has
been caused in it internally. Under the declaration of war by State A, they had trespassed
into State B and had wrongfully confined certain territory of State B. such confinement
was caused with utmost damages to the lives and properties inside State B. These acts are
covered under the definition of war crime10. Thus, State A was liable to be subjected
under criminal prosecution.
2. The International Criminal Court possesses the jurisdiction over the head of State A.
Though State A was not a part of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, yet the
criminal activities would be covered under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. This is
so, because the International Criminal Court possesses the universal Jurisdiction11.
Moreover, under provisions of criminal law, it is not necessary that the accused would be
9 David Bosco, Rough justice: The International Criminal Court in a world of power politics, 6th
ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 2013) 109.
10 John R Bolton, "The Risks and the Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from
America's Perspective", The International Criminal Court, 8th ed (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017)
89.
11 Antonio Cassese, et al., International criminal law: cases and commentary, London: 7th ed.
(Oxford University Press, 2011) 90.

6
under the jurisdiction of the court mandatorily. It is necessary that the prosecution should
be under the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint is filed. Since the International
Court of Criminal Jurisprudence possesses the universal declaration, all the states across
the globe would be under the arena of the International Criminal Court.
3. Under this case, State B had trespassed inside the frontiers of State A. To add to this,
State B had occupied a major chunk of land, rich in gas and oil in State A. This implied
the wrongful confinement upon the property and damages to the lives and the properties
of the people in State A. The acts committed by the head of State B amounted to criminal
activities. Thus, State B would be criminally liable to State A. Though it can be pleaded
by State B that the acts committed by them was a form of retaliation against the former
acts of State A and a sort of private defence against the same, but these defences would
not be considered as valid12.
4. The answer whether State B is under the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Criminal jurisprudence, is in positive. State B is under the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Court. This is so, because the International Criminal Court possesses universal
jurisdiction. This means that all the states in the globe would be under the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court13. To add to this, State B was a party to the Statute of
International Court of Criminal Jurisprudence. All the acts committed by State B would
be governed under the International Criminal Court. State B would responsible for its
illegal acts or for those acts which are criminal and infringing the laws of international
peace and security.
5. State A can invoke the criminal responsibility of State B. This is so, because State A was
the victim of aggression by the military forces under the command of the head of State B.
A major portion of their land rich in gas and oil, was wrongfully captivated by State B.
Thus, State A could invoke the criminal responsibility against State B.
12 Noemi Gal-Or, International Cooperation to Suppress Terrorism (RLE: Terrorism &
Insurgency), 3rd ed (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015) 80.
13 Hyeran Jo and Beth A. Simmons, "Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?",
International Organization 70, no. 3 (2016): 456.

7
State B can also invoke the criminal responsibility in State A. This is so, because State B
was the victim of aggression by the military forces under the command of the head of
State A. A major portion of their territory, was wrongfully captivated by State A. Thus,
State B could invoke the criminal responsibility against State A.
6. State A is subjected to criminal proceedings in State B. This is so because, at first, it was
the head of State A, who wanted to declare war in State B. State A wrongfully trespassed
into the land of State B, through their military troops. After that, there was the wrongful
occupation of land of State B, by State A. this resulted in the widespread damage of lives
and properties in State B. The acts committed by State A were criminal in nature, and
was included under the term armed conflict.
State B is subjected to criminal proceedings in State A. This is so because, State B had
declared war in State A in retaliation. State B wrongfully trespassed into the land of State
A, through their military troops. After that, there was the wrongful occupation of land of
State A, by State B. This resulted in the widespread damage of lives and properties in
State B. The acts committed by State B were criminal in nature, and was included under
the term armed conflict. Thus, State B would also be subjected to criminal proceedings in
State A14.
7. State A and State B are subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
State B was already a member of the Statute of International Court of Criminal
Jurisprudence. To add to this, the International Criminal Court possessed universal
jurisdiction in respect of the criminal matters for all the states, across the globe. Thus,
they both are under the jurisdiction of ICC15.
Conclusion
After a close perusal of the above issues, rules and the application of law in the current case, it
can be concluded that the International Criminal Court possessed universal jurisdiction in respect
14 Leila Nadya Sadat and S. Richard Carden, "The new international criminal court: An uneasy
revolution", International Crimes, 8th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017) 217.
15 Alina Kaczorowska, Public international law, 8th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015) 111.

8
of the criminal matters for all the states, across the world. All the states would be liable to the
states for the criminal activities under the International Criminal Court. To add to this, the
definition of war is termed as armed conflict under the rules of the International Criminal Court.
The definition is wide enough to include all the criminal activities in relation to war and
aggression. Many rules under the Geneva Convention of 1898 and 1907 are at par with the laws
under the International Criminal Court.

9
Bibliography
Allen, Tim. Trial justice: The international criminal court and the Lord's Resistance Army. 3rd
ed. London: Zed Books Ltd., 2013.
Ambos, Kai. Treatise on International Criminal Law: Volume 1: Foundations and General Part.
6th ed. New York: OUP Oxford, 2013.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif. Introduction to international criminal law. 8th ed. London: Brill Nijhoff,
2012.
Bellinger, John B., and Vijay M. Padmanabhan. "Detention operations in contemporary
conflicts: four challenges for the Geneva Conventions and other existing law". American
Journal of International Law 105, no. 2 (2011): 201-243.
Bolton, John R. "The Risks and the Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from
America's Perspective." The International Criminal Court. Abingdon: 8th ed. Routledge,
2017.
Bosco, David. Rough justice: The International Criminal Court in a world of power politics. 6th
ed. London: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Cassese, Antonio, et al. International criminal law: cases and commentary. London: 7th ed.
Oxford University Press, 2011.
Cassese, Antonio. Cassese's international criminal law. 5th ed. London: Oxford university press,
2013.
Gal-Or, Noemi. International Cooperation to Suppress Terrorism (RLE: Terrorism &
Insurgency). 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015.
Jo, Hyeran, and Beth A. Simmons. "Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?".
International Organization 70, no. 3 (2016): 443-475.
Kaczorowska, Alina. Public international law. 8th ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015.

10
Sadat, Leila Nadya, and S. Richard Carden. "The new international criminal court: An uneasy
revolution." International Crimes. 8th ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017.
Scharf, Michael P. "The amnesty exception to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court." The International Criminal Court. 8th ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017.
Werle, Gerhard, and Florian Jessberger. Principles of international criminal law. 6th ed. London:
OUP Oxford, 2014.