aggression.Int’l law.A grave breach of international law by a nation. • The prohibition of
aggression is a pe-remptory rule (jus cogens). Aggressors are guilty of an international crime. But
there is no generally accepted definition of what constitutes aggression despite many attempts
over the years to devise one. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Resolution
on the Definition of Aggression (Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974). It defines
aggression, in part, as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, or political independence of another country, or in a manner inconsistent with the
Charter of the United Nations….” The definition does not extend to measures that, in certain
circumstances, might constitute aggression, nor does it recognize exceptional circumstances that
would make the enumerated acts defensive rather than offensive. The U.N. Security Council has
never expressly relied on the resolution when determining whether a nation’s acts constitute a
“threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” (See U.N. Charter art. 39, 59 Stat.
1031.) The difficulty of finding a generally accepted definition of aggression is reflected in Article
5 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (37 I.L.M. 999). It confers jurisdiction on the
Court over “the crime of aggression” but also requires the parties to the Statute to define the crime
before the Court can exercise juris-diction. [Cases: War and National Emergency 1, 19. C.J.S.
War and National Defense §§ 1, 5–6.]
“Although classical aggression has generally been thought to involve direct military
operations by regular national forces under government control, today subjugation and control of
peoples may well result from resort to non-military methods. Economic pressures on the other
states; demands couched in traditional diplomatic terms but laden with implied threats to compel
action or inaction; fifth column activities; the endless propaganda harangue urging another state’s
peoples to rise against their government; the aiding and abetting of rebel bands intent on
overthrowing another government; and a wide range of other modern techniques must be included
in the concept of aggression in so far as they are delicts at international law, for they are directed
against the sovereign inde-pendence of a state.” Ann Van Wynen Thomas & A.J. Thomas Jr., The
Concept of Aggression in International Law 69 (1972).
direct aggression.Aggression in which a state’s regular armed forces participate.
indirect aggression.Aggression carried out by some means other than through a state’s regulararmed forces.
“[I]ndirect aggression would seem to have two prime meanings: (1) delictual acts armed or
unarmed and con-ducted vicariously by the aggressor state through third parties which endanger
the essential rights of a state, rights upon which its security depends, and (2) delictual acts taken
directly by the governing authorities of a state against another state or vicariously through
third-party groups which do not involve the use of armed force, but which do endanger the
essential rights of a state upon which its security depends. No directly military operations by the
regular armed forces of a state are involved in either case; therefore the aggression can be
regarded as an indirect method of constraint carried on by the aggressor state.” Ann Van Wynen
Thomas & A.J. Thomas Jr., The Concept of Aggression in International Law 69 (1972). [Blacks Law 8th]