Wars of aggression, without justifiable purpose, are now considered international crimes alongside human trafficking and genocide. Aggressive warfare is unacceptable by most nations, but a lack of a uniform definition for a crime of aggression has hindered prosecution. The United Nations and international treaties act as guiding authorities until a uniform definition is agreed upon.
For as long as we have recorded history, wars have been fought for territorial gain or to conquer another nation. The concept that the strongest nation should prevail was widely accepted around the world until the 20th century, when the concept of aggression without justification began to fall out of favour. A new term – “war of aggression” – has begun to make its way into the nomenclature of many languages as a way to describe a war that has no justifiable purpose, such as self-defense. Since then, the world view on aggression has changed to the point where crimes of aggression are now considered international crimes alongside human trafficking and genocide.
When a nation, or a faction thereof, engages in armed conflict against another nation without provocation, it is said to have waged war of aggression. In modern times, aggressive warfare is considered unacceptable by most of the nations of the world. While the precise definition of aggressive warfare may be disputed, most scholars agree that warfare without the justification of self-defense fits the definition.
In most cases, an aggressive war is waged to conquer territory or to subjugate the people of another nation. The war waged by the Nazis in Germany in the 1940s is generally regarded as a prime example of aggressive warfare. A more recent example is Iraq’s infiltration of Kuwait in 1990, eventually leading to the Gulf War.
The lack of a uniform definition for a crime of aggression or a war of aggression has been the major obstacle in prosecuting crimes of aggression internationally. While there is an International Criminal Court, its jurisdiction is limited and complicated. The Rome Statute of the Criminal Court, which is the international treaty establishing the court, states that crimes of aggression are punishable by the court; however, a uniformly accepted definition of aggression continues to be a problem among member nations. Furthermore, not all nations have signed or ratified the treaty: notable absences include the United States, China and India.
Until a uniform definition for the crimes of aggression can be agreed upon, prosecution will remain elusive. Public opinion, however, and international consensus will be a deterrent to nations that might consider waging war on another nation without just cause. The United Nations, as well as many international treaties, will continue to act as a guiding authority in matters of armed conflict until the International Criminal Court, or a similar body, is finally ready to play that role.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
