Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
The International Criminal Court's Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression (SWG) is currently considering two different proposals for a defi nition of the crime. Although different in many respects, both proposals agree that aggression is a ' leadership ' crime that can be committed only by ' persons who are in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State ' . According to the SWG, the ' control or direct ' standard is consistent with -and required by -the jurisprudence of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg Military Tribunal, and International Military Tribunal for the Far East. In fact, that jurisprudence tells a different story. These three tribunals not only assumed that the crime of aggression could be committed by two categories of individuals who could never satisfy the ' control or direct ' requirement -private economic actors such as industrialists, and political or military offi cials in a state who are complicit in another state's act of aggression -they specifi cally rejected the ' control or direct ' requirement in favour of a much less restrictive ' shape or infl uence ' standard. The SWG's decision to adopt the ' control or direct ' requirement thus represents a signifi cant retreat from the Nuremberg principles, not their codifi cation.
Kenneth Heller (Fri,) studied this question.