Aggression, Atrocities, and Accountability: Building a Case in Iraq

John Hagan, Anna Hanson

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Justice Robert Jackson as Chief Prosecutor for the Nuremberg Tribunal presumably did not foresee the troublesome standard he set when he wrote with regard to the war of aggression that “we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would be unwilling to have invoked against us.” He could not have known that more than a half-century later former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz would invoke this logic when he declared the American invasion of Iraq to be a war of aggression – what Jackson also called the “supreme international crime.” Yet few expect the prosecution of such a charge against military or political leaders of the United States or the country itself. Jonathan Bush observes that public attention is typically concentrated more narrowly on atrocities of war. A reliance on dry legal documents such as formal treaties is a barrier to successfully charging leaders or nations for committing wars of aggression and to investigating and collecting evidence of the atrocities involved. David Scheffer makes a similar point with regard to charges of genocide. He argues for applying the alternative concept of atrocity crime during the preliminary stages of building a case for charging genocide. Scheffer's goal is to get investigations started that can later lead to the filing of charges and obtaining convictions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationSeeking Accountability for the Unlawful Use of Force
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages425-450
Number of pages26
ISBN (Electronic)9781316941423
ISBN (Print)9781107187535
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Social Sciences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Aggression, Atrocities, and Accountability: Building a Case in Iraq'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this