Editing War of aggression (section)

===General Assembly Resolution 3314===
{{or section|date=April 2022}}
On December 14, 1974, the [[United Nations General Assembly]] adopted [[Resolution 3314]], which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding as such under international law, though it may reflect [[customary international law]].{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}

This definition makes a distinction between ''aggression'' (which "gives rise to international responsibility") and ''war of aggression'' (which is "a crime against international peace"). Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent. The definition's distinction between an ''act'' of aggression and a ''war'' of aggression make it clear that not every act of aggression would constitute a crime against peace; only war of aggression does. States would nonetheless be held responsible for acts of aggression.{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}

The wording of the definition has been criticised by many commentators. Its clauses on the use of armed irregulars are notably vague, as it is unclear what level of "involvement" would entail state responsibility. It is also highly state-centric, in that it deems states to be the only actors liable for acts of aggression. Domestic or transnational insurgent groups, such as those that took part in the [[Sierra Leone Civil War]] and the [[Yugoslav Wars]], were key players in their respective conflicts despite being non-state parties; they would not have come within the scope of the definition.{{citation needed|date=April 2022}}
[[File:20060715-1 32nd G8 summit.jpg|thumb|US President [[George W. Bush]] and Russian President [[Vladimir Putin]] were both accused of starting a war of aggression.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jon Heller |first1=Kevin |title=Creating a Special Tribunal for Aggression Against Ukraine Is a Bad Idea |url=http://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/07/creating-a-special-tribunal-for-aggression-against-ukraine-is-a-bad-idea/ |work=Opinio Juris |date=7 March 2022}}</ref>]]
The Definition of Aggression also does not cover acts by international organisations. The two key military alliances at the time of the definition's adoption, [[NATO]] and the [[Warsaw Pact]], were non-state parties and thus were outside the scope of the definition.<ref>Ingrid Detter Delupis, ''The Law of War'', pp. 69–70. Cambridge University Press, 2000</ref> Moreover, the definition does not deal with the responsibilities of individuals for acts of aggression. It is widely perceived as an insufficient basis on which to ground individual criminal prosecutions.<ref>L. F. Damrosch, "Enforcing International Law through Non-forcible Measures", p. 202. ''Recueil De Cours/Collected Courses'', Académie de Droit International de La Haye, 1998</ref>

While this Definition of Aggression has often been cited by opponents of conflicts such as the 1999 [[Kosovo War]] and the 2003 [[Iraq War]], it has no binding force in [[international law]]. The doctrine of ''[[Nulla poena sine lege]]'' means that, in the absence of binding international law on the subject of aggression, no penalty exists for committing acts in contravention of the definition. It is only recently that heads of state have been indicted over acts committed in wartime, in the cases of [[Slobodan Milošević]] of [[Serbia]] and [[Charles Taylor (Liberian politician)|Charles Taylor]] of [[Liberia]]. However, both were charged with [[war crime]]s, i.e., violations of the [[Law of war|laws of war]], rather than with the broader offence of "a crime against international peace" as envisaged by the Definition of Aggression.

The definition is not binding on the Security Council. The [[Charter of the United Nations|United Nations Charter]] empowers the General Assembly to make recommendations to the [[United Nations Security Council]] but the Assembly may not dictate to the Council. The resolution accompanying the definition states that it is intended to provide guidance to the Security Council to aid it "in determining, in accordance with the Charter, the existence of an act of aggression".<ref>[[Yoram Dinstein]], ''War, Aggression and Self-Defence'', p. 118. Cambridge University Press, 2003</ref> The Security Council may apply or disregard this guidance as it sees fit. Legal commentators argue that the Definition of Aggression has had "no visible impact" on the deliberations of the Security Council.<ref>M. C. Bassiouni and B. B. Ferencz, "The Crime against Peace", ''International Criminal Law'', I, 313, 334 (M.C. Bassiouni ed., 2nd ed., 1999)</ref>