Date: Wednesday, 27 March 2024
https://theduran.com/the-chaotic-foundation-of-our-laws-the-continuing-failure-to-define-aggression/
The Chaotic Foundation of Our Laws: The Continuing Failure to Define ‘Aggression’
Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)
The most-basic concept in criminal laws is what this article will prove to be the undefined term of “aggression,” which is basic to the illegal forms of “coercion.” As even the International Criminal Court has publicly acknowledged, “aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force.” For example: self-defense against aggression is legal everywhere (and, so, what is basic to criminal law isn’t “coercion,” but instead “aggression,” which is the illegal forms of coercion).
Aggression is basic not only to “rape” and to all other intranational-law crimes, such as “theft” (which, for example, isn’t occurring if the property that is being taken is being restored to its lawful owner and removed from its being in the possession of a thief; and therefore what is basic to determining when and whether a “theft” has occurred is a provenance or history of the property’s ownership), but it also applies to all international-war crimes. For example: in international law, there is a distinction between a “war” and a “battle.” In a war, there might be many invasions and counter-invasions, each one of which could be called a “battle,” but to decide which side was the “aggressor” in that war (and therefore is the international-law criminal) requires identifying the war’s initiating event: who caused the war — who aggressed? Just as it is in intranational law, it’s a historical question that must be answered, before any sensible verdict can be produced in international law.
For example: on 7 October 2023, Hamas Palestinians invaded Israel and killed 1,200 Israelis. That was a battle, but did it initiate the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians (as Israel and America and their ‘allies’ or stooge-regimes allege to be the case)? Certainly not (the Israelis and Americans lie about that), because it was a battle in a war that had begun in 1948 with the Nakba or the theft of Palestinian land and property from the overwhelming majority of the residents there who were Arab Muslims and Christians — who were and had been the residents there for thousands of years — not Jews (a small minority until 1940) at all. Ever since that historical event, of mass-theft, of land and property from non-Jews, the Israelis have been trying to make impossible any return of the land and property that they stole (and that in the West Bank they continue to steal) from the Palestinians.
The reason why Arabs refuse to allow Palestinians to leave Palestine is that the vast majority of Palestinians want back the land and property that Jews stole from them and that if they ever leave Palestine or Israel they will be automatically renouncing their property and their land and will thereby be giving-in to that theft — which the vast majority of them refuse to do. Within only two years from the start of the Nakba in 1948, Israel — the nation that is founded upon this theft and craves to make it permanent and complete — instituted its “Law of Return”, which basically makes permanent not ONLY that no Palestinian is allowed to be a citizen of Israel, but that any Palestinian whose property was stolen can never come back to their land. This Israeli law is the reason why on 16 and 17 October 2023 both President Sisi of Egypt and the King of Jordan rejected the demands and pressures by Israel’s Netanyahu and America's Biden to allow all of the Gazans to become either Egyptians or Jordanians and become forced out of Gaza — ethnically cleansed from their land — by the Israelis (Israeli soldiers) and by Americans (American weapons and financial support).
Right now there is under consideration by the International Criminal Court (ICC) a legal case that Israel is genociding — exterminating — the Gazans. America continues trying to assist Israel to instead expel any Gazans that still survive, but no means of turning the Israeli-American campaign into at least a partial ‘mere’ ethnic cleansing has yet been found, as the ICC is considering the genocide case against only Israel.
Until 2009, there was nowhere a legal definition of the fundamental criminal-law concept of “aggression.” But then, on 11 June 2010, the ICC institutionalized this one:
https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/Publications/Compendium/Compendium.3rd.26.ENG.pdf
The crime of aggression
Annex I Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the crime of aggression 1. Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Statute is deleted. 2. The following text is inserted after article 8 of the Statute: Article 8 bis Crime of aggression 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “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. 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
Is that a definition of “aggression”? Or would you instead say it is plain circular reasoning? (Obviously, if it is the latter, then current international criminal law rests upon a vacuous foundation.)
Here is the answer to that question, from:
——
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC, 14th edition, 1998, by Irving M. Copi + Cohen & McMahon, published by Routledge
p.134 of pdf:
Rule 2: A definition must not be circular. If the definiendum itself appears in the definiens, the definition can explain the meaning of the term being defined only to those who already understand it [if someone does]. So if a definition is circular it must fail in its purpose, which is to explain the meaning of the definiendum [to individuals who don’t yet understand its meaning]. A book on gambling contains this blatant violation of the rule: “A compulsive gambler is a person who gambles compulsively.”12 As another example, a sophisticated scientist, writing in a medical journal, lapses into definitional circularity in this passage: “This review defines stress as a specific morphological, biochemical, physiological, and/or behavioral change experienced by an organism in response to a stressful event or stressor.”13 As applied to definitions by genus and difference, avoiding circularity rules out the use, in the definiens, of any synonym of the definiendum. For example, there is no point in defining lexicon as “a compilation of words in the form of a dictionary.” If the synonym “dictionary” is assumed to be understood, one could as well give a straightforward synonymous definition of “lexicon” instead of resorting to the more powerful but more complicated technique of genus and difference. Similarly, antonyms of the definiendum are also ruled out [to be referred-to in a definition].
——
Our legislators and the individuals who have created our laws have been building our criminal laws upon such a foundation that fails even the most-basic scientific requirement: to adhere to the basic requirements of logic. They are that stupid.
But what can be motivating this stupidity? Specifically in regard to the ICC, the fact that it functions as-if it is for some reason an agent of the U.S. Government (which refuses to accept its authority) could be at least one of the reasons.
I opened my 3 March 2023 “Why Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 Was Legal” by proposing a definition of “aggression” (in the international context) that is NOT circular:
a definition is here employed in which “aggression” is anything that endangers a country’s existence or sovereignty over its legal territory, and “defense” is anything that is provoked by (i.e., in response to) “aggression” and that consequently has been forced upon a country as the only reasonable alternative to allowing itself to be taken over by an “aggressor” country. In this definition (a reasonable and practical definition — as opposed to the U.N.’s absence of any definition), “aggression” can be perpetrated by any means, not ONLY military, but also by such means as a coup, or international subversion, or illegal international sanctions — any means whatsoever that can be used in order to seize control over another country (i.e., over a different sovereign nation’s Government). The U.S. Government has always opposed any definition of “aggression” and has always refused even to consider any proposed definition of it that would include anything else than military aggression, because America routinely uses non-military forms of aggression (such as coups, and sanctions) and demands to be always able to continue to do so without being called an “aggressor.” This is simply a fact, and is the reason why the U.N. is nothing more than a talking-forum and a sump for refugees and any other problems that powerful countries intend to give only lip-service to addressing — it has no significant international power at all.
I closed it with the following:
CLOSING NOTE: The U.N.’s latest formal proposal to address its lack of a definition of “aggression” was on 11 June 2010, and can be seen here. It pertains to the Rome Statute that controls the International Criminal Court (ICC) — a body to which the U.S. Government never joined, so is immune to. It says: “Crime of aggression: 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “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. 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression.” Number 1 there entails the phrase “an act of aggression,” and therefore this ‘definition’ is circular: it defines “aggression” by relying upon a presumedly already defined usage of the word “aggression,” and is therefore blatantly stupid. Number 2 there uses the phrase “inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” but the purpose here was supposed to be to give meaning to that term in the Charter. The U.N.’s Charter employs the word “aggression” 3 times: Articles Numbered 1, 39, and 53, but never defines it. That’s the problem here — not a solution to it. However, this definition of “aggression” does pertain to the U.N.-authorized ICC. And this definition does include as examples of “aggression”: Article 8, #2, paragraphs e and f: “(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” Notice that (f) uses the word “aggression” in ‘defining’ “aggression” — yet again that shocking stupidity. However, ignoring that for a moment: (f) clearly describes “aggression” by Ukraine against Russia; (e) describes “aggression” that’s “The use of the armed forces of America which are within the territory of Ukraine with the agreement of Ukraine, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in Ukraine beyond the termination of the agreement” — except that no such “agreement” exists or is known to exist — and if it does exist, then who, precisely, are the “aggressor(s)” supposed to be? It doesn’t say. So: (e) is also stupid. But (f) describes Ukraine’s aggression against Russia (but entails circularity in doing so). Whether (f) also would be categorizing America as being an “aggressor” against Russia is unknown. However, beyond those problems: Nothing in that ICC ‘definition’ of “aggression” would have bearing upon America’s coup against Ukraine in 2014, which was the actual and precipitating initial act of aggression directly against Ukraine and indirectly (but also very powerfully) against Russia (and to which Russia then ultimately responded on 24 February 2022 by its invasion). Furthermore: None of the three nations — America, Russia, and Ukraine — have ratified the Rome Statute that authorizes the ICC; so, none of the three can be prosecuted by the ICC; so, there can be, under the sole entity that the U.N. has authorized to try cases in international criminal law, no prosecution of any of these three. IN CONCLUSION, therefore: It is clear that anyone who alleges that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an international war crime or in any other way a violation of international law is a mere anti-Russia propagandist; and, moreover, even IF all three of these nations had ratified the Rome Statute, the only one that could be prosecuted for having committed an international war-crime, the crime of “aggression,” would be Ukraine, though the ambiguity of (e) might possibly then allow prosecution of America too; but no prosecution could be allowed against Russia, because even then there would be no rational way to interpret anything that Russia has done in this matter as constituting “aggression.” In the U.S.-and-allied countries, it’s all propaganda; and, unfortunately, publics are stupid enough to believe it, so it’s effective.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
