Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi

Yazarlar: Hilal ELVER

Konular:Sosyal

Anahtar Kelimeler:International Criminal Law,Aggression or Crimes Against Peace,Nuremberg Defense,Civil Disobedience,Use of Force

Özet: 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 House of Lords decided that the crime of aggression is an international crime that is part of customary international law, but they refused to assess the legality of the decision by the UK government to launch the war, or to decide whether the war constituted a "crime against peace or war of aggression. " 'The Law Lords concluded that such questions were not for the courts to determine unless directed to do so by an act of Parliament.

---