In the Encyclopedia Dictionary
(from Latin aggressio - attack), the concept of modern international law, which covers any illegal use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state or people (nation) from the point of view of the UN Charter. It is considered the gravest international crime against the peace and security of mankind. The concept of aggression includes as a mandatory sign of primacy or initiative (the first use of armed force by any state). The 29th session of the UN General Assembly (1974) adopted a definition of aggression.
The meaning of the word aggression
aggression
(from the Latin aggressio - attack), a concept of modern international law that covers any illegal, from the point of view of the UN Charter, use of force by one state against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state or people (nation). The most dangerous form of A. is the use of armed force; An armed attack by one state on another is considered the gravest international crime against the peace and security of mankind. The concept of aggression includes the attribute of initiative, which means the first use of force by any state. Actions of a state under attack carried out in self-defense, even with the use of armed force, cannot be considered an act of A., as well as collective actions of states taken in accordance with the UN Charter to maintain or restore international peace and security. The concept of aggression is applicable only to international conflicts; it is not applicable to civil wars: the subjects of aggression can only be states, and not a part of the people fighting against any other part of it within the same state. The object of aggression is also usually the state, although in the practice of imperialist states there are numerous examples of the use of force, including armed force, against peoples exercising their inalienable right to self-determination and the creation of an independent and free state. Prohibition A. Before the Great October Socialist Revolution, resort to war, regardless of its goals, was considered an inalienable right of every state (jus ad bellum), as the highest manifestation of its sovereignty in international relations. This right was protected by the entire system of principles and norms of international law. The initiator of the prohibition of A. and declaring it an international crime was the Soviet state; Already in the Peace Decree (1917), it stated that it saw one of the main goals of its foreign policy as the eradication of international wars, and declared such wars in any form “... the greatest crime against humanity...”. In the context of the broad anti-war movement that arose after the First World War of 1914-18, the victorious states were forced to take certain measures aimed at condemning A. Thus, the preamble to the Statute of the League of Nations recognized the need to '... accept certain obligations not to resort to war... '. Article 11 of the Statute stated that '...all war or threat of war, whether directly affecting or not affecting any of the Members of the League, is of interest to the League as a whole...' and '...the latter shall take such measures as may effectively protect the peace of nations' . The problem of outlawing aggressive wars was discussed in the League of Nations and at various international conferences, the need for prohibition and the crime of A. was mentioned in the draft Mutual Assistance Treaty of August 15, 1923, in the Geneva Protocol on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of October 2, 1924 (both did not acquire binding). On September 24, 1927, the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a special declaration declaring that any war of aggression is and remains prohibited and constitutes an international crime. The practical significance of this declaration was nullified by the fact that the Statute of the League of Nations not only did not contain a direct prohibition of A., but also allowed (Articles 12, 13 and 15) recourse to war, subject to compliance with certain formal requirements, i.e. essentially legalized war. A. According to the letter of the Statute, only an attack committed in violation of it was recognized. The first real step towards prohibiting and outlawing aggression was the Pact of Paris of August 27, 1928, which for the first time established a multilateral obligation of states to renounce the use of armed force, indicated that its participants '...condemn the method of resorting to war to resolve international conflicts ' and 'refuse in their relations war as an instrument of national policy' and undertake henceforth to resolve all their differences only by peaceful means. Thus, the Pact of Paris undoubtedly went further than the Statute of the League of Nations in this matter, but the practical significance of the pact was weakened by the fact that its provisions were not supported by an effective system of sanctions in case of violation. In addition, the Pact contained reservations that made it possible to evade its obligations. In an effort to give a universal character to the principle of prohibition of aggressive wars, the USSR was the first to ratify the Paris Pact and achieved its early entry into force by concluding a special protocol with Poland, Romania, Estonia and Latvia on February 9, 1929 (in the same year Turkey, Iran and Lithuania joined the Moscow Protocol ). Conducting a persistent struggle for the establishment of the principle of prohibition of aggression in international law, the USSR concluded a number of treaties on non-aggression and neutrality: with Turkey (1925), Germany (1926), Iran (1927), Finland, Poland and France (1932), Italy (1933 ), China (1937), which provided for the mutual renunciation of the parties from any aggressive actions, from participation in similar actions taken by third countries, from supporting any aggressive forces, and also established a system of peaceful means of resolving all disputes that might arise. In modern international law, the prohibition of A. has the meaning of a generally recognized and generally binding principle for all states, which is enshrined in the UN Charter, as well as in the statutes of the Nuremberg (1945-46) and Tokyo (1946-48) international military tribunals. Thus, the UN Charter obliges its members to resolve all their disputes only by peaceful means (clause 3, article 2), without allowing any exceptions to this principle, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence any state or in any other way incompatible with the goals of the UN (clause 4, art. 2). The use of force by a state is allowed only in extreme cases: or in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense, if there is an armed attack on a UN member, and only until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security (Art. 51), or when implementing, by decision of the Security Council, coercive measures aimed at preventing and eliminating threats to peace and suppressing acts of A. (Articles 39, 41, 42, 43, 48) . The statutes of the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals established the legal qualification of A. as a grave international crime. The principles of international law, expressed in the Charter and the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, are confirmed by the resolution of the UN General Assembly of December 11.1946. Responsibility for A. In modern international law, there is a principle of international legal responsibility for A., arising from the principle of the prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force in international relations. States that have committed crimes against peace bear political and material responsibility, and individuals bear individual criminal responsibility. Under old international law, which recognized the 'right to war', the state that carried out the attack and the state that was attacked were legally on an equal footing. The legal consequences of the war were determined by its actual results, since international law recognized the so-called. 'winner's right'. The winner could dictate any terms of peace to the vanquished. The principle of state responsibility did not essentially apply to war and its consequences. The establishment in international law of the principle of prohibition of violence and the use of force in international relations introduced fundamental changes to the institution of international legal responsibility of states. The elimination of the “right to war” led to the elimination of the “victor’s right,” as well as such closely related institutions as annexation, indemnity, etc. The legal consequences of war are now determined not by the fact of victory, but by the state’s responsibility for A., for committing crimes against peace. The principle of state responsibility for war and its consequences was expressed and consolidated in international treaties and agreements relating to the 2nd World War of 1939-45 (Declaration of the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme power by the Allies in relation to this country, the Potsdam Agreements, etc. ), as well as in peace treaties
1947. Thus, the Peace Treaty with Italy states: 'Whereas Italy, under the Fascist regime, became a party to the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Japan, undertook a war of aggression and thereby caused a state of war with all the Allied and Associated Powers and with the other United Nations , and bears its share of responsibility for this war.” Similar provisions are contained in peace treaties with Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. State responsibility for A. may include all types and forms of international legal responsibility (see Responsibility of states). In the event that military sanctions are applied against an aggressor by decision of the UN Security Council, armed forces must be made available by UN members at the disposal of the Security Council on the basis of special agreements concluded between the Security Council and the relevant UN member state. To date (1969), however, such agreements have not been concluded, as a result of which the application of military sanctions against the aggressor by the UN Security Council is practically difficult. Individual states also have the right to respond to violations of international law affecting the maintenance of international peace: the means of influence against the aggressor that they can use outside the UN framework are quite numerous, but they differ significantly from the means used by the UN; as a rule, these are measures not related to using armed force. The UN Charter does not affect the right of states to individual and collective self-defense, however, the use of armed force in self-defense is possible only in the event of an armed attack, and not in the event of a threat of such an attack or any other forms of A. The use of any measures of self-defense against A. is stipulated by the Charter UN under the control of the Security Council. Responsibility for atrocity includes not only coercive measures aimed at suppressing atrocity and restoring international peace, but also various measures to eliminate the consequences of atrocity and prevent the possibility of its resumption. A distinction is made between political and material responsibility of the state for A. Political responsibility is expressed in various forms of temporary limitation of the sovereignty of the aggressor state: complete or partial demilitarization, democratization of the state and social system, etc. For example, in accordance with the Potsdam Agreements, the occupation of Germany was supposed to ensure the eradication German militarism and Nazism so that Germany will never again threaten its neighbors or the preservation of peace; for this purpose, preventing all fascist and militaristic activities and propaganda, encouraging the democratic development of Germany; the elimination of excessive concentration in the German economy - cartels, syndicates, etc., which ensured the rise of fascism to power, the preparation and implementation of Hitler's A. The material responsibility of the aggressor state can be expressed in restitution (the return in kind of certain material values) or in reparations ( compensation for damage caused). International law also provides for individual criminal liability for war against persons guilty of planning, preparing, initiating or carrying out war, as well as persons who committed crimes against the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity during the war (see War criminals). The principle of individual criminal responsibility for crime was confirmed in a number of resolutions of the UN General Assembly, as well as in the draft Code of Crimes against Peace and Humanity developed by the UN International Law Commission. Definition of A. The initiative to develop a definition of A belongs to the USSR. On February 6, 1933, at the Conference on Disarmament (in Geneva), the Soviet government presented a draft Declaration on the definition of the attacking party, in the drafting of which the USSR proceeded from the fact that the prohibition of attack could turn into an empty phrase if the concept of attack was not clearly defined in advance, i.e. i.e. what actions of states are prohibited and constitute Act A. The Soviet project provided that the attacking party in an international conflict would be recognized as the state that was the first to commit one of the following actions: declare war on another state; whose armed forces, even without a declaration of war, will invade the territory of another state; whose armed forces bombard the territory or deliberately attack the ships and aircraft of another state, etc.; will establish a naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another state. The draft emphasized that no considerations of a political, strategic or economic nature could serve as a justification for taking the listed actions, and provided a detailed, indicative list of such considerations. In the event of the mobilization or concentration of significant armed forces by any state near the borders of another state, the latter had to turn to diplomatic or other means of peaceful resolution of the conflict, and also acquired the right to take retaliatory measures of a military nature, without, however, crossing the borders. The Soviet definition of attack received wide international recognition, although the Conference on Disarmament was disrupted by the imperialist states and the convention on defining the attacking party was not adopted. This definition formed the basis of the London Conventions on the Definition of A., concluded by the USSR in 1933 with 11 neighboring states, and also influenced a number of international agreements concluded by other states (for example, the Inter-American Treaty on Non-Aggression and Conciliation Procedure of 1933, the Inter-American Convention on Non-Intervention of 1936 ). The Balkan Entente Pact of 1934 directly referred to the definition of A. contained in the London Conventions
1933. The Soviet definition of A. played an important role in the struggle for international peace and security and was a major contribution to the progressive development of international law. At the Nuremberg trials of major war criminals, this definition was recognized as 'one of the most authoritative sources of international law'. When the UN Charter was developed, the definition of A. was not included in it, although corresponding proposals were made by a number of delegations at the San Francisco Conference. However, on the initiative of the USSR, the question of defining A. was raised at the UN and discussed at the 5th (1950), 6th (1951-52), 7th (1953), 9th (1954) and 12th ( 1957) sessions of the UN General Assembly, this issue was also dealt with by the International Law Commission (1951) and special committees created for this purpose (in 1953 and 1956). The Soviet Union submitted to the UN for consideration the definition of aggression that it put forward in 1933, supplementing it with a provision according to which support by any state of armed bands that, being formed on its territory, would invade the territory of another state, or refusal should also be considered an attack. this state, despite the demand of the attacked state, to take all measures within its power on its territory to deprive these gangs of all assistance and protection. Despite the resistance shown by the United States and its allies in the UN to the development of a definition of aggression, the UN General Assembly in 1952 adopted a resolution that spoke of the possibility and desirability “for the purpose of ensuring international peace and security ... to define aggression using its constituent elements.” At the 9th (1954) and 12th (1957) sessions of the General Assembly, a significant majority of UN member states supported the development of such a definition. However, the imperialist powers continued to sabotage the implementation of this most important political task, delayed in every possible way and, in the end, disrupted the work of the special committee to determine A. The committee created at the 12th session of the UN General Assembly, designed to speed up the consideration of the issue of determining A., also failed fulfill the tasks assigned to it due to the obstructionist position of the United States and other Western powers. The Soviet government, concerned about the developments in the international arena, at the 22nd session of the General Assembly (1967) made a proposal to speed up the development of a definition of A. and create a new special UN committee for this purpose. This proposal was unanimously supported by UN member states. Two sessions of the Special Committee have already taken place (1968 and 1969), during which the USSR submitted a new definition of armed aggression to the Committee for consideration. While maintaining the previous principled approach, according to which the aggressor is the state that was the first to commit certain actions, the new Soviet definition is supplemented by two essential elements: the inadmissibility of using weapons of mass destruction for an attack and the right of colonial peoples to wage an armed struggle for their self-determination. V. I. Menzhinsky.
Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB
In the dictionary Dictionary of foreign words
and, f.
1. An armed attack by one or more states on other countries with the aim of seizing their territories and forcibly subduing their power.||Cf. ANNEXIA" title='ANNEXIA, ANNEXATION is, what is ANNEXIA, ANNEXIA interpretation'>ANNEXIA, INTERVENTION" title='INTERVENTION, INTERVENTION is, what is INTERVENTION, INTERVENTION interpretation'>INTERVENTION, OCCUPATION" title='OCCUPATION, OCCUPIATION is, what is OCCUPATION, OCCUPATION interpretation'>OCCUPATION.
2. About a person or animal: belligerent hostility towards others. In a state of aggression, he is capable of causing a lot of trouble.
Share the meaning of the word:
