<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>The article focuses on contemporary challenges concerning the domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression. These challenges have one common feature, that they deal with the scope of jurisdiction over crime of aggression at a domestic level. The author analyses applicability of jurisdictional immunity (based on the principle <italic>pars in parem non habet iurisdictionem</italic>), immunity of State officials, both personal (<italic>ratione personae</italic>) and material (<italic>ratione materiae</italic>), and finally also the availability of universal jurisdiction in relation to the crime of aggression. The contribution is built on the presumption that even though each category of crimes under international law has its unique characteristics, they all share some common definitional features, reflected among else in the famous Cassese’s definition of crime under international law. The author argues that all crimes under international law are to be treated uniformly as much as possible, and therefore – relatedly – there should not be any unsubstantiated differences in standing of the crime of aggression comparing to standing of remaining categories of crimes under international law.</p>
</abstract>

The article focuses on contemporary challenges concerning the domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression. These challenges have one common feature, that they deal with the scope of jurisdiction over crime of aggression at a domestic level. The author analyses applicability of jurisdictional immunity (based on the principle pars in parem non habet iurisdictionem), immunity of State officials, both personal (ratione personae) and material (ratione materiae), and finally also the availability of universal jurisdiction in relation to the crime of aggression. The contribution is built on the presumption that even though each category of crimes under international law has its unique characteristics, they all share some common definitional features, reflected among else in the famous Cassese’s definition of crime under international law. The author argues that all crimes under international law are to be treated uniformly as much as possible, and therefore – relatedly – there should not be any unsubstantiated differences in standing of the crime of aggression comparing to standing of remaining categories of crimes under international law.

Crime of Aggression before Domestic Courts: Some Contemporary Challenges

International and Comparative Law Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Crime of Aggression before Domestic Courts: Some Contemporary Challenges"}

The article focuses on contemporary challenges concerning the domestic prosecution of the crime of aggression. These challenges have one common feature, that...

Crime of Aggression before Domestic Courts: Some Contemporary Challenges

Publicado en línea: 05 feb 2024

Páginas: 111 - 128

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2023-0017

Palabras clave
crime of aggression, domestic prosecution, challenges, jurisdictional immunity, personal immunity, functional immunity, universal jurisdiction

© 2023 Ondřej Svaček, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Crime of Aggression before Domestic Courts: Some Contemporary Challenges

Publicado en línea: 05 feb 2024

Páginas: 111 - 128

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2023-0017

Palabras clavecrime of aggression, domestic prosecution, challenges, jurisdictional immunity, personal immunity, functional immunity, universal jurisdiction

© 2023 Ondřej Svaček, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Palabras clave
crime of aggression, domestic prosecution, challenges, jurisdictional immunity, personal immunity, functional immunity, universal jurisdiction