Talk:Crime of aggression

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crime of aggression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112210935/http://www.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/143178.htm to http://www.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/143178.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crime of aggression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320072358/http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf to http://www2.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/Resolutions/RC-Res.6-ENG.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger

I'm working to merge crimes against peace into this article because as stated in this source, these are two terms for the same concept and "crime of aggression" is more commonly used now. (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, based on our disagreement here [1], the terms appear to be different. The term "war of aggression" can only include an actual war, while the "crime against peace" also includes a conspiracy to commit war of aggression. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  My very best wishes Partly true; the Nuremberg charter does define crimes against peace as including conspiracy, but at the Nuremberg trials, there were separate charges for crimes against peace and conspiracy to commit crimes against peace. The Rome Statue definition does not include conspiracy but does include planning. More importantly, there was no crime of aggression in international law at the time the Soviet Union did invasions in 1939 and 1940. The criminalization was ex post facto in the case of Nazi aggression, but the Nuremberg Charter specifically excluded the Allies from prosecution. These are important nuances that are covered in legal sources but may not be fully understood by non-specialist sources. Needless to say, this article is not about wars of aggression throughout history but specifically the crime and how it came about.

  Note that the RS cited such as Sayapin, Kemp, the Cambridge commentary on the crime of aggression, etc. discuss the Nuremberg and Tokyo charter, international customary law, Rome Statute, domestic law, as aspects of the same international crime. Additionally, the content that you restored at crime against peace is pretty bad and misleading (for example, the Kellogg-Briand pact does not include a crime against peace), because it just quotes a bunch of legal instruments with minimal context. The WWII- and postwar-era developments are already better covered in this article. (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I understand you agree that "war of aggression" and "crime against peace" are not exactly the same? Can we simply quote directly the definitions of these terms from RS? I understand there are clear definitions. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

My very best wishes There are different definitions of crimes against peace used at different postwar tribunals. They are already quoted in the body of the article. I believe it would be giving undue prominence to selectively quote a particular definition in the lead. Indeed, war of aggression and crime of aggression are not equivalent, the article discusses the differences in several places already. (t · c) buidhe 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

So, are you saying that "crime of aggression" and "crime against peace" is exactly same subject? But then why did you remove content that clearly fall under definition of "crime against peace" according to the cited source with such edit summary? My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

They're different names for the same international crime. The Soviet invasions of 1939 and 1940 and the German-Soviet pact are already mentioned in the article, but we must not mislead readers by saying it was criminal at the time as I explained above. This article is about legal aspects, historical aspects are covered in war of aggression. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Nuremberg trial verdict described aggression as "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Everyone on the Moon is Essential Personnel ‎

5x expanded by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 22:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Showing as high risk of copyright violation compared with this source... But the word-for-word match is the part on how "the crime of aggression is distinguished from the act of aggression, defined as follows" with its a-g points. I imagine these probably need to match precisely the original because it is a legal definition, and it is well-cited, so I think that this is fine but wanted to state that I had run the check and investigated the high probable match. Zeromonk (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

To Prep 1. I agree with the reviewer that the article does have a lot of comparison with a source, but this is because the article uses quotes of legal definitions which cannot be modified or paraphrased. All instances of direct quotes are cited, and I do not think there is a copyright violation. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition and examples

According to definition of the term (note that I cited a scholarly source, which in term cites an international legal document), this is not only an actual war of aggression, but also a conspiracy to commit a war of aggression. But you first reverted the definition [2], and then reverted a textbook example of the crime against peace that falls under such definition [3]. I insist that the definition (or definitions) of the term must be cited as defined in scholarly RS, and that the examples from scholarly RS should also be included. That is if you insist that the "crime of aggression" and "crime against peace" are the same subject. It well could be that "crime of aggression" and "crime against peace" are actually different terms (the "conspiracy" was said specifically about the crime against peace), and therefore, your unilateral merging of these pages was incorrect and need to be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Anglo–Soviet invasion of Iran

Shimbo none of the sources I consulted indicate that this event was relevant to the legal development of the crime of aggression. This crime has been committed many times, but very few of them are not mentioned in the article. Possibly the reason that Iran wasn't mentioned in these discussions is because of Eurocentrism, but nevertheless it wasn't considered important. Furthermore, per WP:NOR, we need an actual source, not just what seems obvious to you. (t · c) buidhe 01:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not that it "seems obvious to me" that there was an Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during WW2, it's that there's a fully sourced article about it. I defies common sense that things that have sourced articles already need citing before they can be mentioned in another article.

I'm well aware what OR is having been contributing to Wikipedia for decades. If you insist the edit needs a cite it would seem more reasonable to add a 'citation needed' tag rather than just deleting information that you said yourself is a 'good point'.

I find it hard to believe that the sources say that a (likely unknown at the time as it would have been secret) invasion of Norway that never actually took place was an important issue during the development of the crime of aggression, while a clear and obvious act of aggression by the Allies wasn't. If that's what the sources say then okay, but I'd like you to post the relevant paragraphs. Do you have the references available?

IIRC there's something about it in Churchill by Roy Jenkins, but I don't have it to hand. I will try to dig it out.

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but please re-consider or start an RFC. Shimbo (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems obvious to you that it's relevant to this article. No one is questioning that the invasion occurred, merely that it is relevant and mentioned in sources about the crime of aggression. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The planned invasion of Norway was brought up during the deliberations that produced the Nuremberg Charter. Prosecutors were concerned that their countries could end up getting charged with aggression. Iran wasn't mentioned. Norway was brought up again during the trial, Germans responsible for the invasion claimed that they were innocent because they supposedly acted only to prevent a British invasion of the country. Since Germany didn't plan to invade Iran, I guess it didn't seem relevant. Three sources significantly cited in the Nuremberg trials article that discuss the Norway affair—Sellars 2013, Priemel 2016, Hirsch 2020—none of them mention the invasion of Iran. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the other sources as they have no preview, but 'Crimes Against Peace' and International Law' p149 says the British were concerned about German counter-charges regarding:

• Responsibility for the outbreak of the war
• Denmark, Norway, Belgium and and the Netherlands
• Yugoslavia and Greece
• Historical aggression by UK, such as imperialism and particularly the Boer War.

I agree there's no mention in that source of the invasion of Iran, but it appears that the paragraph in the article should be amended, to include the other factors that were considered.

Only the invasion of Norway became a source of controversy during the trial, but the way the trial played out and the pre-trial concerns are different things IMO. Shimbo (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the UK was not e

Given that the UK was not leading on the development of the crime of aggression, I'm inclined to think that writing more is wp:undue. It's true that Sellars gives more details, but there is a ton of content in her book than could ever fit in the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a more accurate list of the factors considered is the kind of thing that the Undue Weight policy concerns itself with. A more accurate paraphrase of the source seems nothing like "a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority".

If the article becomes too long, as you suggest it might if it includes more accurate, sourced information then that's not AFAIK something dealt with via the Undue Weight policy, it's some that's dealt with by via the WP:LENGTH policy, which gives multiple ways of dealing with excessive length, none of which are refusing the addition of accurate, sourced material. Shimbo (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If it would not be in a version good enough to qualify as FA, it should not be added to the article. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)