source: here
¨
SUMMARY:
This post explores the definition of the crime of aggression under international law, referring to the Rome Statute and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. It discusses how this definition applies to the Nord Stream pipeline incident, considering the Crime Sequence Reconstruction conducted during the investigation. This reconstruction indicates that elements of the UK government planned, organized, and executed the mission to sabotage critical European energy infrastructure. Additionally, it examines the current public claim that the incident was carried out by a semi-governmental Ukrainian group of divers using a yacht named Andromeda.
KEY TAKEAWAY:
To constitute the crime of aggression, three foundational elements must be present:
A perpetrator exercising control over state action.
Engagement in the planning or execution of the act.
The act itself constituting a significant violation of the UN Charter.
DATA:
Definition of the crime of aggression
The crime of aggression is defined in art. 8bis in the Rome Statute of the ICC adopted at the 2010 Review Conference in Kampala. In essence, three elements are required:First, the perpetrator must be a political or military leader , ie a “person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State.”
[MRT: The prime suspect is Liz Truss as the head of UK´s military and a small group in the UK government]
Second, the Court must prove that the perpetrator was involved in the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of such a State act of aggression.
[MRT: Which court? The international investigation has been declined/prevented.]
Third, such a State act must amount to an act of aggression in accordance with the definition contained in General Assembly Resolution 3314 , and it must, by its character, gravity and scale, constitute a manifest violation of the UN Charter. This implies that only the most serious forms of illegal use of force between States can be subject to the Court's jurisdiction. Cases of lawful individual or collective self-defence, as well as action authorized by the Security Council are thus clearly excluded.
For more analysis of the definition, please consult our Handbook . Article 8 bis reads as follows:
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 which aggression, 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:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
[MRT: Not this one obviously,..]
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
[MRT: Nordstream pipelines are incorporated in Switzerland and ownership differs. They are located in EEZs of DK and SWE.]
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
[MRT: Note the case of calls for closing Danish straights for Russian trade and ships, it did not happen and Russian has voiced that such act would be considered an act of aggression.]
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, be it or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
[MRT: Attack my marine forces of a state on marine - seems to qualify. The phrasing is a bit unclear.]
(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;
[MRT: I guess Sweden and Denmark has used this clause, JEF connected. They were checking whether the submarine was in their TZs]
(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
[MRT: I guess Sweden and Denmark has used this clause, JEF connected. They were checking whether the submarine was in their TZs]
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.
[MRT: This act could be considered if Nordstream attack was done by non-state actor on behalf of a state.]
CONCLUSSIONs:
1. A perpetrator in control: If a small group within the UK government ordered the attack, this could fulfill that criterion, as it suggests a control over state action
2. Planning or execution: Evidence that this group was actively involved in planning or executing the attack on the pipelines is essential. If investigations support that UK officials orchestrated the sabotage, this would substantiate the crime of aggression claim
3. A violation of the UN Charter: The act must constitute a significant violation of the UN Charter, representing an illegal use of force against a state. Given that the Nord Stream pipelines are primarily owned by Russian entities, an attack on them could be interpreted as an aggression against Russia, depending on the context and intent behind the attack
4. Considering Nord Stream AG's ownership structure, including majority Russian control through Gazprom, an attack on these pipelines could indeed be seen as an act of aggression against Russia, particularly if it significantly disrupts Russian interests or sovereignty
SUM: Therefore, if the facts align with the definitions and elements required, the attack could potentially be classified as a crime of aggression under international law.
IF WESTERN LEADERS FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS THE UK (and this research/investigation shows that the mission leaked before it happened) AND THAT THE ATTACK ACTUALLY FULFILLS DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3314, ARTICLE 3, POINT (D) THEN THIS IS A VERY STRONG REASON TO CONCEAL THE PERPETRATOR.
RELATED POSTS
[MRT: This post looks at how the definition of the event was "managed" to be just a "sabotage"]
030 - Who said it is a "Sabotage" first?
030 - Who said it is a "Sabotage" first?
[MRT: This post looks at how the crime has been concealed as a joint effort from the top]
047 - The Prague Summit & possible cover-up of Nordstream affair
OTHER RELATED POSTS:
089 - IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS - Security threats to undersea communications cables and infrastructure – consequences for the EU
123 - Russian-linked Nord Stream files claim after 2022 blast
140 - Nordstream AG and the insurance case - update
151 - Nord Stream 2 AG insurers deny policies covered war risks in UK lawsuit
153 - The Nord Stream AG operator justified his claim against insurers
154 - UNCLOS - The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea AND Nordstream
164 - Security Law: Guidelines for Grey Zone Naval Incidents
167 - About the NATO statement: "deliberate, reckless, and irresponsible acts of sabotage"
***
***
Uncovering the truth took over two years of self-funded, tireless investigation.
I decided to open it for free, no paywall, despite huge investment.
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.
Every bit helps keep this mission alive!
Because the truth matters.
Please consider supporting my work with a donation.
Every bit helps keep this mission alive!
(retweet and follow)
No comments:
Post a Comment