Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T17:38:29.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1974 Definition of Aggression: A Query

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

C. Lloyd Brown-John
C. Lloyd Brown-John*
Affiliation:
University of Windsor, Ontario, and Vienna University, Austria
Get access

Extract

On december 14, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus a draft resolution submitted by its Sixth (legal) Committee known as the Definition of Aggression. Adoption of this definition culminated years of effort, interspersed with numerous wars, by the international community. Here is not the place to enter into an elaborate discussion either of its history or contents. It will suffice to note that its antecedents can be traced back to the 1815 Triple Alliance, the 1907 Hague Conventions, the League of Nations, and the 1945 Inter-American Act of Chapultapec. From 1952 to 1974, however, at least four United Nations special committees grappled with the task of this definition, made more crucial by the growing diversity of techniques of aggression and the restraintson responding to aggression imposed by Article 51 of the Charter.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 15 , 1978 , pp. 301 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A useful review of the definition is contained in Cassin, Vernon et al., “The Definition of Aggression,” 16 Harvard Int’l L. J. 589–613 (1975).Google Scholar Randelzhofer, Albrecht, “Die Aggressiondefinition der Vereinten Nationen,” 30 Europa Archiv 621–30 (1975).Google Scholar Ferencz, Benjamin B., “Defining Aggression: Where It Stands and Where It’s Going,” 66 Am. J. Int’l L. 491–508 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (which contains more detail on the period from 1967 to 1972). Freeman, Alwyn V., “Editorial Comment: Why Try Again to Define Aggression?”, 62 Am. J. Int’l L. 701–22 (1968),Google Scholar argues that in the light of fruitless efforts to that point in time, a Soviet and American consensus on a definition was necessary. On the matter of ideological and economic aggression, see: Sottile, Antoine, “Agression ideologique, économique,” 38 Revue de Droit International de Sciences Diplomatiques et Politiques 418–21 (1960).Google Scholar Substantial detailed background is contained in Zourek, Jaroslav, “Enfin une définition de l’agression,” 20 Annuaire Français de Droit International 9–30 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also in a special issue, 2 Georgia J. Int’l and Comp. L. 1ff (1972), (Supp. 1), especially the article by D. Piper. For a Soviet view, see Kuznetsov, V., “Definition of Aggression: A Triumph for the Peaceful Forces,” International Affairs (Moscow), Issue 3, at 21–29 (1975).Google Scholar Kuznetsov modestly describes the definition as “a major triumph for the Soviet Union.” The most complete critical study is that by Stone, Julius, “Hopes and Loopholes in the 1974 Definition of Aggression,” 71 Am. J. Int’l L. 224–46 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar This critical appraisal is expanded in more detail in his book, Conflict through Consensus: United Nations Approach to Aggression (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1977).

2 A “13 Power” draft from “non-aligned” states; a Soviet draft; and a “6 Power” draft (including Canada). To resolve disputes the Committee eventually resorted to “squarebracketing.” This is a technique whereby differences between contending draft texts are identified with square brackets and negotiations tend to focus upon these explicit points of disagreement.

3 One hesitates to add legal proportions owing to the contending views about the status of General Assembly resolutions adopted by consensus.

4 A complete text of the definition may be found in two of the articles cited in note 1 (Cassin and Zourek) or in 62 U.S. Dep’t State Bull. No. 1858, at 158ff.

5 Stone, , “Hopes and Loopholes …,” supra note 1, at 245.Google Scholar

6 Bank of Ethiopia v. National Bank of Egypt and Liguori, [1937] 1 Ch. 513.

7 Salimoff & Co. v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, 262 N.Y. 220, 186 N.E. 679 (1933).

8 It is with some caution that the concept of “implied recognition” is invoked in this discussion. The concept has been suggested however, in two United States cases and thus warrants note: see Republic of China v. Merchants’ Fire Assoc. Corp., 30F. (2nd) 278 (1929); and Murarka v. Bachrach Bros, Inc., 215F. (2nd) 547, at 551–52 (1954).

9 [1921] 3K.B. 538, 543 (CA.).