The addition of the crime of aggression to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which creates a framework for holding individuals accountable for using military force unlawfully to jeopardize international peace and security, is a significant milestone in international criminal law. However, prosecuting the crime of aggression presents complex legal, political, and procedural challenges. This paper examines the legal aspects of aggression in accordance with the Rome Statute, including its proper meaning with jurisdictional framework, and the threshold for prosecution, as well as the conflict between state sovereignty and the criminal responsibility of the individual. The Kampala amendments in 2010 provided a clearer definition of aggression, drawing from UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, and set procedural conditions for ICC jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the UN Security Council's role remains a significant cause of conflict, as it still has the power to decide if an action qualifies as aggression, which complicates the jurisdictional power of the ICC.
The paper further explores the challenges posed by the manifest violation threshold for prosecuting aggression, the impact of geopolitical factors on the enforcement of the law, and the role of powerful states in shaping the future of aggression prosecutions. The legal complexities surrounding the crime of aggression highlight the need for continued international cooperation and reform, as well as a stronger commitment to ensuring accountability for acts that threaten global peace. This abstract provides an overview of the main political and legal considerations that affect the prosecution of violence, providing information about potential roadblocks and opportunities for the advancement of international criminal justice in this area.
