Exemples d'utilisation de Aggression has been committed en Anglais et leurs traductions en Français
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Aggression has been committed; or.
Gives an advisory opinion that an act of aggression has been committed by the State concerned; or.
Option 5: the Court may proceed if it ascertains that the International Court of Justice has made a finding in proceedings brought under Chapter II of its Statute that an act of aggression has been committed by the State concerned.
An act of aggression has been committed by a State.
For the first time since the Second World War,an open act of aggression has been committed in Europe.
This act of aggression has been committed against an independent, sovereign and peace-loving country which does not threaten any other country, does not question the interests of others and respects and abides strictly by the principles, rules and procedures of the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act and other relevant documents.
Makes a finding in proceedings brought under Chapter II of its Statute that an act of aggression has been committed by the State concerned.
They referred to Article 39 of the Charter, according to which the Security Council has the exclusive power to determine whether an act of aggression has been committed. In their view, it was difficult to see how an individual could be charged with an act of aggression- assuming a definition for individual culpability were agreed upon- without the threshold requirement of an act of aggression first being determined by the Security Council.
Makes a finding in proceedings brought under Chapter II of its Statute that an act of aggression has been committed by the State concerned.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 describe the scenario where the Security Council- afterhaving been informed by the Prosecutor of his or her intention to formally open an investigation- itself determines that an act of aggression has been committed.
Moreover, the Security Council may conclude that"a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances"(para. 3);
Article 16 of the Rome Statute grants power to the Council to suspend investigations or indictments carried out by the Court, andarticle 5 of the same text purports to regulate in the future the Criminal Court's jurisdiction based on the determination by the Security Council that an act of aggression has been committed by a State.
The world has yet to explicitly condemn Eritrea for its aggression, while it has not been silent when aggression has been committed in Europe and Asia, let alone compel Eritrea to leave territories it had taken by force.
Article 16 of the Rome Statute grants power to the Council to suspend the Court's investigations or indictments, and article 5 purports that the future regulation of jurisdiction of the Criminal Court's be subject to the Security Council's determination of whether ornot an act of aggression has been committed by a State.
It is understood that aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of theillegal 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.
Under the United Nations Charter, the universal treaty supersedingall other international treaties, the prerogative of establishing that an act of aggression has been committed belongs to the Security Council.
There remains the question whether the obligation is activated by a prior, authoritative finding by an impartial organ of the world community that the crime of aggression has been committed: is the Security Council the only organ empowered to make such a finding and is a specific call for non-recognition by the Security Council a prerequisite to the activation of the obligation?
Option 4: the Court may request the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and article 65 of the Statute of the International Court, on the legal question of whether ornot an act of aggression has been committed by the State concerned.
It would seem that the court should only be bound by Security Council decisions when an act of aggression has been committed, as stipulated in paragraph 2.
Option 5: The Court may request the Security Council, acting on the vote of any nine members, to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the International Court,on the legal question of whether or not an act of aggression has been committed by the State concerned.
The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter,conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.
The court should be bound by Security Council decisions only when an act of aggression had been committed, as provided in paragraph 2.
But the present text provided that an individual could be guilty of the crime of aggression only if aggression had been committed by a State.
When deciding that a threat to peace andsecurity existed or that an act of aggression had been committed, the Council should refer to the international legal norm which had been violated and give legal reasons for its decision.
The Court should have the power to determine for itself whether crimes of aggression had been committed. Otherwise, it would be unable to deal with cases of crimes of aggression because they had not been described as such by the Security Council.
The need to determine that an act of aggression had been committed by a State, which could only be done by the Security Council, before an individual could be held responsible for an act of aggression raised several problems.
Indeed, the Rome Statute should contain an explicit reference to the role of the Security Council in establishing the fact that an act of aggression had been committed before the Court obtained jurisdiction in such a case.
Immediately after the aggression had been committed, amendments to the Constitutional Law on human rights and freedoms and the rights of ethnic and national communities or minorities in the Republic of Croatia were announced.
His delegation supported the provision of article 23 enabling the Security Council to make use of the court on a permanent basis; however,the court should be bound by Security Council decisions only when an act of aggression had been committed, as stipulated in paragraph 2; paragraph 3 should be deleted.