THE CURRENT RELEVANCE OF AGGRESSION AND THE NEED TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENTIATED APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
Keywords:
aggression, jus cogens, international humanitarian law, military necessity, occupationAbstract
This article explores the differentiated application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in case of aggression. It points to the gravity of the aggression and the centrality of its prohibition in contemporary international law as the basis for differentiated application and the breach of the principle of equality of belligerents. Since one of them—the aggressor—commits a serious violation of a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), claiming that IHL should recognize the belligerents as equals in this case would jeopardize the position of the prohibition of aggression within the legal order: the aggressor could attempt to use IHL norms to consolidate the legal effects of its aggression, in clear violation of jus cogens and the hierarchy it implies in international law. At the same time, the article indicates the limits of differentiated application, which are restricted to the rights and advantages that IHL recognizes for States, and in no way affect the rights of protected persons or the obligations of States—both belligerents and third parties—towards them. It is argued that differentiated application is limited to preventing the aggressor from invoking rights or advantages under IHL that would allow it to consolidate its aggression, but does not legitimize any violation of the victim's obligations. The article examines three issues within IHL that give rise to arguments in favor of differentiated application: the aggressor's inability to invoke military necessity as an exception; the modification of the aggressor's rights and obligations in the case of occupation; and the aggressor's responsibility for the deaths of enemy combatants.
References
ASIL (1939). Draft Convention on Rights and Duties of States in Case of Aggression. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, Supplement: Research in International Law, 827-830.
Benvenisti, E. (2012). The International Law of Occupation, 2a ed. Oxford University Press.
Bonafé, B. (2022). Assessing Reparation for International Crimes: The Case of Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo. Rivista di diritto internazionale, 3, 761-794. https://riviste.lefebvregiuffre.it/rivista-di-dirittointernazionale/rivista/11576581/dettaglio/143180535/assessing-reparation-for-international-crimes-the-case-of-armed-activities-on-the-territory-of-the-congo
Carta de las Naciones Unidas (1945), San Francisco, 26 de junio de 1945 (en vigor desde el 24 de octubre de 1945).
CCPR (2018). Observación general N°36. Artículo 6: derecho a la vida, UN doc. CCPR/C/GC/36.
CDI (1967). Anuario de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional 1966, Vol. I (segunda parte). Naciones Unidas.
CDI (2022). Normas imperativas de derecho internacional general (ius cogens). Texto del proyecto de conclusiones y de anexo aprobado por el Comité de Redacción en segunda lectura, UN doc. A/CN.4/L.967.
CIJ (1971). Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 15.
CIJ (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
CIJ (1996). Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
CIJ (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136.
CIJ (2005). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168.
CIJ (2022a). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Reparations, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2022, p. 13.
CIJ (2022b). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Reparations, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2022, p. 13, Separate Opinion of Judge Yusuf.
CIJ (2024). Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024.
Clark, R. S. (2017). Individual conduct. En C. Kreß y S. Barriga (Eds.), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (pp. 565-589). Cambridge University Press.
Comellas Aguirrezábal, M. T. (2007). La incidencia de la práctica del Consejo de Seguridad en el Derecho Internacional Humanitario. Thomson-Aranzadi.
Convenio (IV) relativo a las leyes y usos de la guerra terrestre (1907). La Haya, 18 de octubre de 1907 (en vigor desde el 26 de enero de 1910).
Corten, O. (2021). The Law Against War. The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law, 2a ed. Hart Publishing.
D’Argent, P. (2002). Les reparations de guerre en droit international public, Bruylant.
Definición de la Agresión (1974), aprobada por resolución 3314 (XXIX) de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, 14 de diciembre de 1974, UN doc. A/RES/3314 (XXIX).
Dill, J. (2019). General Comment 36: A Missed Opportunity? Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/62473/general-comment-36-missed-opportunity/
Dinstein, Y. (2011). War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5a ed. Cambridge University Press.
Dinstein, Y. (2015). Military Necessity, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e333
Dinstein, Y. (2016). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 3a ed. Cambridge University Press.
Eboe-Osuji, C. (2022a). Military Necessity and Aggression. German Yearbook of International Law, 65, 11-36. https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.2023.310257
Eboe-Osuji, C. (2022b). Reply to Professor Claus Kreß. German Yearbook of International Law, 65, 53-62. https://elibrary.duncker-humblot.com/article/73909/a-reply-to-judge-eboe-osuji
Fox, H. M. (1993). Reparations and state responsibility: claims against Iraq arising out of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. En P. Rowe (Ed.), The Gulf War 1990–91 in International and English Law (pp. 231-253). Routledge.
Gattini, A. (2003). Le Riparazioni di Guerra nel Diritto Internazionale. CEDAM.
Goodman, R., Heyns C. y Shany, Y. (2019). Human Rights, Deprivation of Life and National Security: Q&A with Christof Heyns and Yuval Shany on General Comment 36. Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/62467/human-life-national-security-qa-christof-heyns-yuval-shany-general-comment-36/
Greenwood, C. (1983). The relationship between Ius ad bellum and Ius in bello. Review of International Studies, 9, 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500115943
Greenwood, C. (1999). International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War. Preliminary Report for the Centennial Commemoration of the First Hague Peace Conference 1899.
Haque, A. A. (2017). Aggression, Armed Conflict, and the Right to Life: Does UN Human Rights CommitteeGet it Right?. Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/44040/aggression-armed-conflict-life-human-rights-committee-right/.
Hayashi, N. (2010). Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. Boston University International Law Journal, 28, 39-140. https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume28n1/documents/39-140.pdf
Heiskanen, V. y Leroux, N. (2015). Applicable Law. Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Legacy of the UN Compensation Commission. En T. J. Feighery, C. S. Gibson. and T. M. Rajah (Eds.), War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Designing Compensation After Conflict (pp. 51-80). Oxford University Press.
IDI (1963). Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 50.
Jackson, M. y Akande, D. (2022). The Right to Life and the Jus ad Bellum: Belligerent Equality and the Duty to Prosecute Acts of Aggression. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 71, 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000033
Jiménez de Aréchaga, E. (1958). Derecho constitucional de las Naciones Unidas. Escuela de Funcionarios Internacionales.
Jöbstl, H y Rosenberg, D. (2023). The Humanization of War Reparations: Combatant Deaths and Compensation in Unlawful Wars. Michigan Journal of International Law, 45(1), 39-91. https://doi.org/10.36642/mjil.45.1.humanization
Kalmanovitz, P. (2015). Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law. International Theory, 7(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971914000372
Kelsen, H. (1951). The Law of the United Nations, 2ª ed. Stevens & Sons Limited.
Kreß, C. (2022). A Reply to Judge Eboe-Osuji. German Yearbook of International Law, 65, 37-51. https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.2023.331823
Lauterpacht, H. (1953). The Limits of the Operation of the Law of War. British Yearbook of International Law, 30, 206-243.
Lieblich, E. (2021). The Humanization of Jus ad Bellum: Prospects and Perils. European Journal of International Law, 32(2), 579-612. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab039
Mandel, M. (2011). Aggressors’ Rights: The Doctrine of “Equality between Belligerents” and the Legacy of Nuremberg. Leiden Journal of International Law, 24(3), 627-650. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000288
McDougall, C. (2021). The Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2a ed. Cambridge University Press
McMahan, J. (2009). Killing in War. Clarendon Press.
McMahan, J. (2016). Proportionality and Necessity in Jus in Bello. En. S. Lazar y H. Frowe (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War (418-439). Oxford University Press.
Okimoto, K. (2015). The Relationship Between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. En M. Weller (Ed.), The Use of Force in International Law (pp. 1209-1223). Oxford University Press.
Orakhelashvili, A. (2007). Overlap and Convergence: The Interaction Between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 12, 157-196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krm010
Pezzano, L. (2013). El principio de la abstención del uso de la fuerza y la agresión. Cuaderno de Derecho Internacional, 8, 105-134.
Pezzano, L. (2020). La agresión en el Derecho de los Tratados. Cuaderno de Derecho Internacional, 13, 95-130.
Pezzano, L. (2021a). El Artículo XXI del GATT y la agresión: hacia una interpretación compatible con la unidad del orden jurídico internacional. PUCP Derecho, 86, 9-38. https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.202101.001
Pezzano, L. (2021b). La relación entre el acto de agresión y el crimen de agresión en el derecho internacional. Ciencia, Derecho y Sociedad-UNC.
Protocolo I adicional a los Convenios de Ginebra de 1949 relativo a la protección de las víctimas de los conflictos armados internacionales (1977), Ginebra, 8 de junio de 1977 (en vigor desde el 7 de diciembre de 1978), 1125 UNTS 3.
Rodin, D. y Shue, H. (Eds.). (2008). Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford University Press.
Sandoz, Y. et al. (1987). Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja.
Sassòli, M. (2007). Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello the Separation between the Legality of the Use of Force and Humanitarian Rules to Be Respected in Warfare: Crucial or Outdated? En M. Schmitt y J. Pejic, J. (Eds.), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein (pp. 241-264). Martinus Nijhoff.
Schabas, W. A. (2007). Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus ad Bellum. Israel Law Review, 40(2), 592-613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700013443
Schrijver, N. (2005). Article 2, paragraphe 4. En J. P. Cot y A. Pellet (Dir.), La Charte des Nations Unies. Commentaire article par article, 3a ed. (pp. 437-466). Economica.
Tams, C. (2024). Article 2(4). En B. Simma et al. (Eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 4a ed. (pp. 289-366). Oxford University Press.
TPIY (2004), Sala de Apelaciones, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Sentencia de 17 de diciembre de 2004.
UNCC (1991). Criterios para la tramitación acelerada de reclamaciones urgentes, Decisión N°1, UN doc. S/AC.26/1991/1.
UNCC (1992). Decision N°11. Elegibility for Compensation of Members of the Allied Coalition Armed Forces, UN doc. S/AC.26/1992/11.
UNCC (1994). Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning individual claims for serious personal injury or death (category "B" claims), UN doc. S/AC.26/1994/1.
Von Glahn, G. (1957). The Occupation of Enemy Territory… A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation. The University of Minnesota Press.
Zedalis, R. J. (1991). Burning of the Kuwaiti Oil fields and the Laws of War. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 24(4), 711-755. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol24/iss4/4/
