International Law
The process leading to adoption of a definition of aggression in internationals has involved different stakeholders. Various parties have participated in creating a working definition of this legal process. Some of the sources that have been involved in creating a definition of aggression are the states, international bodies, international law, and scholars. However, as noted each party provides its own definition based on the suitability of each function within the legal system. The development made by these parties in finding the definition might affect the emergence of an acceptable definition of aggression under the international law.
Aggression under international laws is defined as the use of force by an individual state against another state or country. In this case the use of force is not justified by law as either being self-defences or any other legally recognized exceptions under international laws. As result aggression is illegal under international laws. On the other hand the international bodies such as the United Nations have put forward the definition of aggression. In this case the United Nations general assembly defines aggression as the use of armed forces by a state in contravention of the United Nations charter. It includes prima facie evidence for aggressions. The United States stats that the use of force may not be termed as aggression if it is undertaken in a way consistent with the charter. One of the perfect example is the 1992 use of force by the American armed forces in Somalia. In this case the United Nations allows the first use of force to extricate citizens of any country that are facing persecution in another country. On the same note the United Nations allows for other measures such as the Entebbe raid by the Israelis forces in Uganda.
Scholars on the other hand have put forwards their legal definitions of the aggression with respect to the international laws and events that have contributed to aggression. Most scholars argues that the legal definition of aggression should include a comprehensive right of non-UN-approved intercessions to prevent large scale human rights violations. In this case, scholars advocate for inclusion of attacks, invasions, and occupation for whatever duration that is deemed necessary by the any country appropriate to protect its citizens from oppressive government and regimes in any country .this is a similar definition that is held by the states which hold that no country should be deemed to violate international laws if their actions are a meant to protects the lives of their citizens. The united nations sources is legally binding for states because it defines the necessary humanitarian conditions required to use force without violation of the sovereignty of other countries.
The Vienna convention was significant on highlighting rules and regulation for amending any international treaty (Villiger, 2009). The convention law declares that the any suspension or amendment of the operation of treaty between two countries or any in multilateral treaty should be done so by agreement of all parties that are question (Wolfrum, 2005). No single country or state can violate such treaties without the consent of other members to amend the treaty (Fitzmaurice, Elias, & Merkouris, 2010). The amendment should be implied by conclusion of a later treaty that binds all the members in the treaty. Some of the reasons that the Vienna convention allows for amendment of treaties is the request by member states to amend treaties, the breach of conduct by members states a result changes in their constitution and fundamental change of circumstances (Dörr, & Schmalenbach, 2012).Furthermore the treaties can be amended as result of severance of diplomatic or consular relations between the member states. Such rules and regulations by the Vienna convention provides legal framework for the amendment of such treaties (Hollis, 2012).
How does the amendment procedure set forth by the Rome Statute resemble/differ from that contemplated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
The amendment set forth by the Rome statute are resemble those amendment set forth by the non-proliferation treaty whose aim was to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and any other technology of mass destruction . All the amendments procedures set forth by the Rome statute calls for member states to be involved in all the amendment procedures (Villiger, 1997). The parties that call for amendment for the two treaties are different. Besides the treaties set forward will include the disarmament of weapons from any nations that is involved in production of nuclear weapons with the aim of mass destruction. Although the two amendment resembles, they differ slightly on the issue of criminal prosecution .The Rome amendment set forward the criminal liabilities by countries found in violation of any international laws regarding the issue of arms and weapons of mass destruction.
Why, in your view, are the amendment procedures different for these two treaties?
In my view the amendment procedures are different from these two treaties since they provide different rules and regulation beside the emphasis of these two treaties are different with each treaty focusing on a different objective. The time set before any amendment may be made is also different from the two treaties. For instance the Rome statute allows for seven years before any state can put forward any request for amendment.
References
Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A commentary. Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Fitzmaurice, M., Elias, O., & Merkouris, P. (2010). Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years on. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Hollis, D. B. (2012). The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Villiger, M. E. (1997). Customary international law and treaties: A manual on the theory and practice of the interrelation of sources. The Hague [u.a.: Kluwer Law Internat.
Villiger, M. E. (2009). Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Wolfrum, R. (2005). Developments of international law in treaty making. Berlin [u.a.: Springer.
