The conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression

The Working Group still has some work to do before it gets close to a consensus. Consequently, it may not be advisable to discuss concrete drafting proposals; while everything is still on the table, all of the texts have been thoroughly discussed. Instead, it is proposed to continue on the road taken at Princeton, namely to clarify the issues involved, in order to set the stage for a later agreement. Therefore, it would be most useful to:

1. try to analyse the legal parameters (de lege lata, existing international law) and

2. set out the possible options including the legal implications of these options.

Below is an outline of the issues which appear to be involved. This scheme should imply no preference for any particular view or solution.

The Group had a good discussion on the rights of the accused (D, below) in Princeton (see paras 60–62 of the Princeton report). Further, the questions listed under C are slightly more technical (though by no means uncontroversial). Consequently, discussions on points A and B seem to be most urgent. Those two clusters contain between them the important and controversial issue whether the UN Security Council has the exclusive right to determine that an act of aggression has occurred. That, of course, entails a discussion about Article 39 of the UN Charter, but hopefully the Group will deal with other issues, too.