Crime of Aggression and Complementarity – 
           Kampala
 • From SWGCA and onwardsno need for a special 
  provision concerning complementarity 
 • The ‘differentiated’ approach prevailed over the 
  ‘monist’ approach: all other articles on admissibility 
  will apply to the crime of aggression. 
 • In Kampala : 
 • Indirectly dealt complementarity (framing conditions 
  for the exercise of jurisdiction             ultimately 
  restrict (domestic) prosecutions to the limitations of 
  the jurisdictional regime).
   Main features of the adopted Kampala 
         Compromise
  • The Aggression package was a huge success 
   for the Court and for the like-minded 
   stakeholders.
  • This compromise came at a cost to the 
   uniformity of the ICC’s jurisdictional regime.
  Crime of Aggression- Kampala Compromise
  • Definition
  …“crime of aggression” means the planning, 
  preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a 
  position effectively to exercise control over or to direct 
  the political or military action of a State, of an act of 
  aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, 
  constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the 
  United Nations. 
  ( Nuremburg +GA RS 3314)
    Crime of Aggression’s characteristics& 
     complementarity implications
 • Crime of aggression is based on inter-state 
  activity (act of aggression)
 • Has effect on inter-states relations, regional and 
  international stability (Political implications)
 • Will be determined by judges (not Diplomats) for 
  conducts usually national judges didn’t prosecute 
  applying a complex definition 
             Res. 6, Annex III, 
           Understandings 4 and 5, 
      Domestic jurisdiction over the crime of aggression
     4. amendments that address the definition of the act of 
    aggression and the crime of aggression …for the purpose of 
    this Statute only. .. not be interpreted as limiting or 
    prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of 
    international law for purposes other than this Statute (Art 
    10).
     
    5. It is understood that the amendments shall not 
    be interpreted as creating the right or obligation 
    to exercise domestic jurisdiction with respect to 
    an act of aggression committed by another State.