Does the War Against Iraq Constitute a "Crime of Aggression"? A Ruling of the House of Lords

Abstract

This article analyzes a decision of House of Lords (February, 2006), the United Kingdom's highest court, concerned with anti-war demonstrations objecting on the basis of international law to British participation in the Iraq war. This "civil disobedience" case alleged that the accused had unlawfully caused damage at military bases in England, as well as unlawfully trespassing on government property. The defendants asked the Law Lords to decide whether they should be allowed a necessity defense acknowledging the commission of a lesser crime as necessary to prevent the government of the United Kingdom (UK) from committing what they regarded as a far greater crime, a "crime of aggression". The Law Lords agreed that a crime of aggression is a crime under customary international law, but refused to examine the legality of the UK government's decision to participate in the Iraq war or whether the war could be considered a crime of aggression. According to the Law Lords, such a decision is not within the jurisdiction of the court, but is solely within the purview of Parliament.

Keywords

International Criminal Law, War Crimes, Crime of Aggression or Crime Against Peace, Nuremberg Defense, Civil Disobedience.

Citation

Elver, Hilal, “Does the War Against Iraq Constitute a "Crime of Aggression"? A Ruling of the House of Lords”, International Relations, Volume 4, Issue 14 (Summer 2007), pp. 85-119.

Affiliations

• Hilal Elver, Prof., California University