The Summit on ICC Warrants: Israel & Hamas
The Crime of Aggression and the Kampala Amendment: Evolving Statutes for the ICC on the Crime of Aggression
Expert Confirmation Summit of ICC Arrest Warrants Against Israeli / Hamas Leadership 
Calls for Action
Expand the Definition of Aggression: Legal scholars and policymakers should work towards broadening the definition of the crime of aggression to include actions by non-state actors and diverse types of aggression, such as civil attacks. This would address the evolving nature of conflict and fill existing gaps in international criminal law.
Amend Jurisdictional Rules: There is an urgent need to reform jurisdictional limitations that require both the aggressor and victim state to be ICC members. One potential solution is to allow prosecution if either the aggressor or victim is a member state, ensuring broader accountability for acts of aggression.
Reduce Reliance on the UN Security Council: The role of the UN Security Council in determining acts of aggression often obstructs ICC actions. Legal experts should advocate for reducing the Council’s influence or creating alternative mechanisms to enable the ICC to act independently in cases of aggression.
Strengthen State Cooperation: Efforts should be made to enhance mechanisms for ensuring state cooperation with the ICC, particularly when political considerations hinder compliance with legal obligations. Innovative legal tools are necessary to hold states accountable when they fail to cooperate with international prosecutions.
Address Head of State Immunity: The evolving case law on head of state immunity, as seen in recent decisions like the French Court of Appeal on Assad, offers new avenues for prosecution. Legal reformers should push for broader recognition of these legal precedents, opening the door for prosecuting heads of state for international crimes.
Enhance National Court Collaboration: National courts should play a greater role in complementing the ICC’s efforts, particularly in cases where the ICC lacks jurisdiction. Best practices from countries like Germany, with its Code of International Criminal Law, should be shared and implemented in other jurisdictions to bridge existing gaps in international justice
Panel Discussion Summary
The panel discussion explored the complexities of prosecuting the crime of aggression under the ICC’s current legal framework, with a particular focus on the challenges posed by state sovereignty, jurisdictional limitations, and political considerations. Panelists delved into the evolving nature of international law on aggression, emphasizing the need for reform to address new forms of conflict and the role of non-state actors.
Key Points Discussed:
Definition and Scope of Aggression:
Dr. Sarah Thin outlined the historical development of the crime of aggression, noting its unique ties to state sovereignty. She argued for expanding the definition to include non-state actors, as modern conflicts often involve non-governmental entities. This would align international law with contemporary realities and ensure broader accountability.
Jurisdictional Challenges:
Ketevan Khutsishvili discussed the limitations on the ICC’s jurisdiction, which currently requires both the aggressor and victim state to be members of the ICC. She proposed reforms that would allow the ICC to prosecute cases if at least one party is an ICC member state, which would significantly broaden the Court’s ability to address crimes of aggression.
UN Security Council’s Role:
Judge Ujala Joshi Jubert critically examined the role of the UN Security Council in authorizing ICC prosecutions for aggression. She argued that the Council’s involvement often impedes swift action, particularly in politically sensitive cases. Jubert suggested reducing the Security Council’s role or creating alternative legal pathways to facilitate more timely prosecutions.
State Cooperation with the ICC:
Dr. Herta Daubler-Gmelin highlighted the challenges of securing state cooperation with the ICC, particularly when political interests conflict with legal obligations. She noted the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure that states fulfill their responsibilities under international law, including cooperation with ICC investigations and prosecutions.
Head of State Immunity:
The panel discussed recent legal developments challenging the immunity of heads of state from prosecution for international crimes. Dr. Daubler-Gmelin pointed to the French Court of Appeal’s decision on Assad as a potential turning point, signaling a shift in international law toward allowing domestic courts to prosecute heads of state for crimes of aggression.
Complementarity and National Courts:
Ketevan Khutsishvili and Judge Jubert emphasized the importance of national courts in complementing the work of the ICC, especially when the Court’s jurisdiction is limited. They cited Germany’s Code of International Criminal Law as an example of how national legal systems can be aligned with international standards, offering additional avenues for prosecuting crimes of aggression.
The panelists called for significant reforms to the ICC’s legal framework on the crime of aggression, highlighting the need for broader definitions, expanded jurisdiction, and reduced reliance on the UN Security Council. They emphasized the importance of enhancing state cooperation with the ICC and addressing head of state immunity to strengthen accountability for international crimes. National courts were seen as key partners in these efforts, with the potential to fill jurisdictional gaps and reinforce international legal standards. The discussion underscored the necessity of collaborative efforts between legal scholars, policymakers, and civil society to drive these reforms forward, ensuring a more robust system of international criminal justice
