У статті проаналізовано юрисдикцію Міжнародного кримінального суду щодо злочину агресії, яку
Суд отримав на підставі Кампальських додатків 2010 р. до Римського Статуту. Розглянуто умови
і шляхи набуття Судом юрисдикції щодо злочину агресії та можливі варіанти здійснення такої юрисдикції на практиці.
The article deals with analysis of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression
which the Court received under the 2010 Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute. The author examines
the definition of the crime of aggression given in article 8 bis which comprises an individual clause
(the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a leadership position of an act of aggression
which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United
Nations) and a general clause. The position of the USA concerning the prosecution of an individual for the
crime of aggression is analyzed under which the Security Council would first need to determine that a state
had committed an act of aggression. The author stresses that despite the non-declaration of war, the acts of
aggression may include numerous actions starting with the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State
of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion
or attack, and up to the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries,
as defined in the UN GA Resolution 3314 (ХХІХ) of 14 December 1974. The annexation of the Crimea and invasion
by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, both regular and irregular, in the East of Ukraine since
March 2014 meets this definition of aggression. The author analyses conditions and mechanisms of acquiring
jurisdiction over the crime of aggression by the International Criminal Court and possible ways of exercising
such jurisdiction. It is accentuated that the Court may, in accordance with article 12, exercise jurisdiction
over a crime of aggression, arising from an act of aggression committed by a State Party, unless that State
Party has previously declared that it does not accept such jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar.
The sui generis jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is based upon states’ consent. However where
the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation in respect of a crime
of aggression, he or she shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act
of aggression committed by the State concerned. The author draws to the conclusion that as it is not likely that
aggressor states will recognize the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the main responsibility
still rests with the UN Security Council which has the authority to address the International Criminal Court
in such cases.
