Prosecutability of the Crime of Aggression: Another Declaration in a Treaty or an Achievable Norm?

This review critically examines the prosecutability of the crime of aggression under international criminal law, questioning whether it functions as a tangible legal norm or remains a declaratory provision lacking enforceability. Tracing its historical roots from the Nuremberg Trials through the Rome Statute and the Kampala Amendments, the paper explores the legal definition, jurisdictional framework, and implementation challenges that distinguish aggression from other core international crimes. It analyzes the interplay between state sovereignty, political will, and institutional limitations that have obstructed efforts to hold individuals accountable for illegal uses of force. The study also contrasts the crime of aggression with genocide and war crimes, highlighting its underdeveloped jurisprudence and procedural hurdles. While the Kampala Amendments signify a normative commitment to criminalizing aggressive war-making, their limited ratification and reliance on state consent undermine universality and enforcement. The paper concludes that without legal reform, broader ratification, and stronger political consensus, the crime of aggression risks remaining aspirational. However, its codification represents a critical step toward promoting accountability, peace enforcement, and the evolving architecture of global justice.