What Exactly was Agreed in Kampala on the Crime of Aggression?

Written by

The ICC review conference held in Kampala earlier this month decided, by consensus, to amend the ICC Statute so that the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once the amendments come into force. The final text of the amendments to the ICC Statute on the Crime of  aggression are now available on the ICC website (see here). However, there seems to be some (significant) confusion as to what exactly was agreed on the crime  of aggression in Kampala. There is also room for argument as to whether some of the decisions made in Kampala will be legally effective, in other words it is possible that they will not have the legal effect the drafters sought to achieve. This post will examine briefly set out what was agreed and highlight those areas where there is significant ambiguity surrounding the agreement. In particular I want to discuss issues surrounding the definition of aggression, when the aggression amendments will become operational and most importantly who will be bound by the amendments.

Definition of Aggression

First of all, the definition of aggression to be included in the Statute is that recommended by the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression prior to Kampala. In other words no changes were made to the text. The definition, which will be Art. 8bis of the Statute, states that:

“For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”

The contentious part of this definition was the qualifier, i.e, the requirement that the act of aggression be a ‘manifest’ violation of the Charter. What does that mean? Does it mean an obviously illegal violation, a violation with serious consequences or a violation which is both obviously illegal and serious. This question was not resolved in the text of the amendments but addressed in the Understandings attached to the text. Two of those understandings read as follows:

6. It is understood that aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force; and that a determination whether an act of aggression has been committed requires consideration of all the circumstances of each particular case, including the gravity of the acts concerned and their consequences, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

7. It is understood that in establishing whether an act of aggression constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the three components of character, gravity and scale must be sufficient to justify a “manifest” determination. No one component can be significant enough to satisfy the manifest standard by itself.

 I read this to mean that a breach of the prohibition of the use of force will only amount to aggression where it is a grave violation with serious consequences. There can be debate about whether two of the three criteria of character, gravity and scale would suffice or whether all three are required. The first sentence of Understanding 7 suggests that all 3 criteria must be at work while the second sentence appears to suggest that 2 will do. However, either way, either or both of gravity and scale must justify the conclusion that the use of force is a manifest violation of the Charter. So the seriousness of the consequences of the use of force must be considered.

When will the aggression amendments become operational?

Throughout the negotiations on the crime of aggression there had been a debate as to whether the amendments should come into force under Art. 121(4) or Art. 12(5) of the Statute. The former  requires ratification or acceptance by 7/8ths of the State parties with the amendments then binding on all States parties. On the other hand, the latter states that:

Any amendment to articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Statute shall enter into force for those States Parties which have accepted the amendment one year after the deposit of their instruments of ratification or acceptance. In respect of a State Party which has not accepted the amendment, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime covered by the amendment when committed by that State Party’s nationals or on its territory.

 Argentina, Brazil and Switzerland submitted a paper in Kampala which attempted to bridge the divide. However, in the end, the review conference, in the resolution that adopted the aggression amendments, decided that the amendments shall enter into force in accordance with Art. 121(5). Apparently, Japan strongly opposed this decision though not strongly enough to block consensus.

 The parties in Rome Kampala seemed to think that it was for them to decide on how the amendments were to come into force. But it is not clear that the “decision” taken in Kampala  that the amendments shall come into force in accordance with Art. 121(5) is in any way binding. Can a State that opposes this decision or an accused person argue that the amendments can only come into force in accordance with Art. 121(4)? It could be argued that an opposing State or defendant can challenged the “decision”, if Art. 121(4) actually applies on its face. Arguably, all that was done in Kampala was to adopt a text (to use the language of Art. 9 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) and the adoption of a text does not usually create  legal obligations for States or indeed for the Court and will not allow bypassing of the binding text of Art. 121 as it exists. The alternative view would be that even if Art. 121(5) did not apply on its face, somehow the parties in Kampala have amended that article such that it now applies. Such a conclusion would raise a number of issues of fact and (treaty) law which will require further examination.

In any case, whether the Kampala “decision” to bring the amendments into force by Art. 121(5) is in itself binding or not, the view that Art. 121(5) is the applicable provision is a reasonable one. However, it is by no means an open and shut case and this matter will also require further examination. Art. 121(5) only applies to amendments to Arts. 5,6,7 & 8. The aggression amendments go beyond amendments to those provisions. However, I think a good case can be made that the amendments are all a package intended to bring into effect the ‘new’ crime and that the intention behind Art. 121(5) is that it applies to amendments dealing with the creation of new crimes.

Having decided that the amendments will come into effect under Art. 121(5) the parties decided to impose additional conditions before the Court can prosecute for aggression. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction over aggression committed one year after 30 states have ratified the amendments. Furthermore, the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression will only commence once a decision is made to that effect, after 1 January 2017 by the States parties. The decision is to be made by at least 2/3rds majority. So we will have to wait nearly seven years before the aggression amendments become operational (assuming we have 30 ratifications by then). These conditions apply to prosecutions commenced as a result of state party referral and proprio motu prosecutions (Art. 15bis) as well as to prosecutions resulting from a Security Council referral (Art. 15 ter).

Trigger Mechanisms for Prosecutions for Aggression

The aggression amendments make a distinction between the three trigger mechanisms that exist for ICC jurisdiction. Art. 15bis  deals with referrals by State parties and proprio motu prosecutions by the Prosecutor and Art. 15 ter deals with Security Council referrals. Starting with the latter, all that is required is a referral of a situation by the Council and the Council need not have determined that an act of aggression has taken place.

Art. 15bis was the more controversial provision. It is significant to note that it was agreed that referrals by State parties and proprio motu prosecutors can take place without a Security Council filter. In other words the Security Council need not have determined that an act of aggression has taken place. Moreover though the Security Council can defer an investigation or prosecution under Art. 16 it is not given any additional powers to stop aggression prosecutions.

The other significant features of Art. 15bis is that State parties may opt out of ICC jurisdiction over aggression under this provision and the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression when committed by a national of a non-State party or on its territory.

Who will be bound by Art. 15bis of Aggression Amendments?

The opt out provision is the most confusing aspect of the aggression amendments. Who exactly  is required to opt out? Once the requisite number of ratifications are reached and a decision is made in or after 2017 to activate the aggression provisions, are all States parties to be regarded as bound such that the ICC has jurisdiction over aggression committed by the nationals of all States parties unless they opt out? Or does the ICC only have jurisdiction over nationals of States parties who have accepted/ratified the amendment unless that State party opts out? Bill Schabas and Kevin Jon Heller appear to believe that the all States parties are bound unless they opt out. So, absent an opt out any national of any State party can be prosecuted for aggression once the amendments come into force. However, I have recently spoken to members of two State delegations at Kampala who take the view that only those States parties that ratify the amendments are bound and that only aggression committed by a State that has ratified the amendment can be prosecuted by the Court, unless they opt out. This latter view would seem to accord with Art. 121(5) that the amendments only enter into force for those States that have ratified or accepted them. Further that provision states, the Court may not prosecute with respect to the crimes committed by nationals of, or on the territory of those who State parties who do not accept.

I doubt if this was thought through in Kampala and I doubt that if asked the specific question I pose in this paragraph, all delegations would have given a uniform answer. It worthwhile noting that the only part of the resolution that adopts the aggression amendments is not conclusive with regard to who needs to opt out. It states that: “any State Party may lodge a declaration referred to in article 15 bis prior to ratification or acceptance.” By referring to opt outs prior to ratification or acceptance it must be referring to those who have not yet ratified or accepted and opens up the possibility that such States need to opt out. However, this clause may also be read as referring simply to the time within which a ratifying or accepting State must opt out, if it wishes to do so. In other words, if a State party ratifies or accepts the amendment and wishes to opt out, it needs to have done so before it ratifies or accept. On this view, the opt outs could still be confined to those State parties who ratify or accept.

But it may be argued that if only those States parties who ratify are bound, why have an opt out provision. Why would a State ratify the amendment only to opt out of jurisdiction? On this view, the opt out provision must be included mainly in relation to those State parties who do not ratify. Otherwise it would be redundant. But this is not necessarily so. The opt out is not redundant even if only those who ratify are bound. For one thing, ratification by 30 States is necessary for the Security Council referral mechanism to come into effect. So a State may wish to ratify to bring that part of the amendment into effect but to opt out of the state referral and proprio motu prosecutions mechanisms. Secondly, a State may wish to bring the amendments into effect generally while excusing itself from ratification prosecution [corrrection].

There is perhaps another view that would argue that it is consistent with Art. 121(5) for all States parties who do not opt out to be bound. On this view, one would have to argue that a State party is presumed to accept the amendment unless it opt outs. So only those who opt out are to be regarded as not accepting the amendment and in that way the principle of consent is maintained though consent is presumed.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. In particular, it would be interesting to see what States parties do. It may well be that even those who don’t ratify play it safe, adopt a belt and braces approach, and choose to opt out anyway. But to the extent that many States do this, then this may be considered as practice indicating the view of the parties that those States who don’t opt out are bound. So States parties are in a catch 22 situation: opt out and they may be taken as supporting the view that presumed consent is a valid way of binding States and don’t opt out and a court may find that it has jurisdiction over aggression committed by that State.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed


Kevin Jon Heller says

June 21, 2010


Great post. Just to be clear, I don't believe that the amendments are binding on all States Parties unless they opt out. My post presumed that the States Parties in question had accepted the amendments. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear -- and will be blogging about the issue at OJ later!

Kevin Jon Heller says

June 21, 2010

My post is up, for interested readers:


Dapo Akande says

June 22, 2010


I do apologise for misrepresenting your position. I would recommend that readers read your earlier post and your post of today. In that post you make the important point (which I tried to make above) that ratifying and then opting out protects the State's nationals from prosecution while helping to bring the amendment into effect. You then say:

"a State Party that never opts in will be in the same position as a non-party State, while a State Party that opts-in and then opts-out will be in a unique position — it will be better protected against aggression than a non-party State, but its nationals will be no less immune from prosecution than nationals of a non-party State"

I can see why you take this position. The position follows from one interpretation of the second sentence of Art. 121(5) - an interpretation that admittedly follows from a literal reading of that sentence, i.e that there is no jurisdiction with respect to any act of aggression committed by the nationals of or on the territory of a non-consenting State party.

But what do you think about an alternative interpretation of that second sentence of Art. 121(5)? Might one not try to read that sentence in a manner consistent with the ordinary jurisdictional provisions of the Statute by saying that the fact that a crime was committed by a national of a State Party that has not accepted an amendment, or on the territory of such a State shall not confer jurisdiction on the Court. This would then mean that it may be possible to have jurisdiction over that same act or person on some other basis, i.e because it was committed on the territory of a State that has accepted the amendment. I do accept that does not follow literally from the text but perhaps makes the text (i.e Art. 121 when read with Art. 12) more coherent.

Mihai Martoiu Ticu says

June 21, 2010

So, according to this definition, what kind of acts could count as aggression? Could the invasion of Iraq count as one?

Loner says

June 22, 2010


The amendment refers to UN GA Res. 3314 (1974) which provides a list of acts that would count as acts of aggression. Invasion of Iraq would definitely fit among those.

Mihai Martoiu Ticu says

June 22, 2010


Is that the reason they introduced this strange provision that individuals from states that are not parties to the Rome Statute cannot be tried for aggression if the state invaded one of the parties? Were they afraid that some of the defenseless nations would become a party to defend themselves against an eventual lurking at their oil by the U.S. (Russia, China or other powerfull states) and after an eventual U.S. invasion, ask the court to start a procedure against some U.S. presidents? After all that is what Michael Glennon, Anthony D'Amato and others have argued: that the guys in Kampala could not possible establish a definition of aggression based on the U.N. charter since this would mean that the U.S. military actions during Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Vietnam, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Sudan in 1998, Iraq, Yugoslavia in 1999, and Pakistan today could just fit into the definition of aggression. Maybe a better, shorter and for everybody easy to understand definition would have been: Aggression is whatever U.S. calls aggression.

Natasha says

June 30, 2010

Dear Dapo,

Thank you very much for shedding some light on the results of the conference, which were quite confusing to say the least. Am I correct in summarising the post-Kampala position as follows:

• Jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of aggression is now part of the statute, but before it can be exercised there must be 30 ratifications of the specific amendment by states parties pursuant to art 121(5) and at least a year must have passed from that time; there must also be a 2/3 majority of states parties voting in favour of commencement of jurisdiction to prosecute aggression at the assembly of states parties in 2017;

• Proposals to require a prior SC determination that an act of aggression had been committed, have been conclusively rejected;

• The suggestion that the use of the term ‘manifest’ in the definition of aggression comported both clarity and gravity (made by Kress and others) has been dropped. According to the Understandings, ‘manifest’ is not to be taken to require legal clarity; it is the seriousness of the consequences which is important; and

• Jurisdiction over the crime of aggression can be exercised in one of three ways:

1) Proprio motu powers of the prosecutor (subject to confirmation by the Pre-Trial Chamber), except with respect to aggression committed by nationals of non-states parties or on the their territory, and except with respect to those states parties who have opted out of the aggression amendment (subject to the appropriate interpretation of the opt-out provision in article 15bis);
2) Security Council referral of a situation to the Court (which can be effective even with respect to non-state parties); and/or
3) Self-referral by a state of an act of aggression which it has committed (presumably unlikely to occur) or an act of aggression which has been committed against it (unless the act was committed by nationals of a non-party state or by nationals of a state party which has opted out of the amendment).

Many thanks,


Dapo Akande says

June 30, 2010

Hi Natasha,

The summary from your first two bullet points is correct. However on the first bullet point, I was trying to make the point in my post that some may argue that despite the decision in Kampala that it is the Art. 121(5) amendment procedure that applies, that it is actually the Art. 121(4) procedure that will actually apply. If that argument were correct then you would require 7/8ths ratifications. Ultimately it is for the Court to decide on this but I think the parties are right to think it is Art. 121(5) that applies - though the argument against this position is not lightly dismissed.

The point in your third bullet point - the meaning of manifest - is not necessarily correct. I think seriousness is required but it can be argued that obvious illegality is also required. This latter point may be caught by the term "character". The understandings say you have to consider all three criteria and that no one criterion will suffice to make a violation manifest. The question left unanswered is whether satisfying two of the three will do. If so, then seriousness on its own would be enough as gravity and scale go to seriousness. If you need all three then it may be argued that if a use of force is not obviously illegally then by character it is not manifest. So this is still an open question.

With respect to your last bullet point, the main question for discussion is whether aggression committed by a State party which does not ratify the amendment is covered by the amendments. As I mention in my post some may argue (have argued) that aggression committed by State parties who do not ratify the amendment will be within the jurisdiction of the Court. At least it can be argued that aggression committed by non-ratifying State parties on the territory of ratifying State parties is covered, under Art. 12 of the Statute. The problem with this argument is that requires us to read Art. 121(5) of the Statute (especially the second sentence) in a way that is out of line with its literal interpretation. So the questions would be (i) what does Art. 121(5) mean and (ii) are the amendments to be taken as amending Art. 121(5). I think the latter would be incorrect.

Shreekrishna Mulmi says

February 23, 2011

This is a good initiative, however, jurisprudence should be developed on the fact that what it really should be and not based on political interest of the states.