By Gurgen Petrossian
The Republic of Armenia constantly faces both threats of aggression and accusations of aggression. The periodic allegations from Azerbaijan claiming that Armenia is preparing for aggression effectively serve as propaganda tools to preemptively justify their own military actions against Armenian territory. In this situation, it is evident that Armenia has not only the right but also the obligation to ensure its legal protection in international forums, regardless of the highly political consequences that may ensue.
Political compromise does not imply legal silence
Even if Armenia’s current government has adopted a conciliatory approach by avoiding appeals and demands in international courts, this in no way justifies the proposal to completely abandon legal protection. Being a subject of international law means having not only rights but also instruments to ensure the protection of those rights. Armenia cannot afford not to use these tools, especially when facing ongoing aggression.
The illegal nature of aggression in international law began to take shape after World War I. In 1928, France and the United States initiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact, whereby states committed to resolving issues exclusively by peaceful means. Despite this pact’s limited impact, it was an important precedent for legally enshrining the principle of peace.
After World War II, during the Nuremberg Trials, “crimes against peace” became one of the main charges. It was the first time when heads of state were subjected to criminal liability for aggression.
The UN Charter subsequently established the prohibition on the use of force as a fundamental principle of international law. In 1974, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314 on the definition of aggression, but it did not have binding legal force. A comprehensive legal formulation of the crime of aggression found its expression only in 2010 at the Kampala Conference within the framework of the Rome Statute. This amendment included the crime of aggression within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but exclusively for states that have ratified the relevant provisions. To date, only 47 out of 125 member states have ratified the Rome Statute’s provision on the crime of aggression.
Although the crime of aggression is legally enshrined in the Rome Statute, there is a significant problem from a practical perspective in relation to its application: the current framework creates a contentious situation that the head of a state that has ratified the statute can be subject to criminal prosecution, whereas the headof a state that has committed aggression against that state, but has not ratified the relevant provision, remains outside legal prosecution.
The Russia-Ukraine war clearly demonstrated the limited functionality of this mechanism, effectively turning the provision regulating the crime of aggression provision into a largely symbolic tool.
Starting in 2025, international discussions have begun aimed at amending the Rome Statute, particularly with regard to expanding its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The goal is to create a mechanism whereby the court can have jurisdiction even in cases where the victim state has ratified the statute, but the aggressor state has not.
Why is this important for Armenia?
Armenia has not yet fully utilized the opportunities provided by international law regarding the crime of aggression, but the current geopolitical situation and regional threats require a review of this approach. Specifically:
- Armenia can present evidence to the international community that military actions carried out against it fall within the framework of the crime of aggression, violating fundamental principles of international law.
- Legal recognition of aggression can serve as a basis for demanding specific responses at the diplomatic level aimed at preventing and punishing aggression.
- Taking legal steps can be an additional signal to international partners that Armenia does not consider an aggressive strategy toward its neighbors.
- This process can establish a precedent for future cases in international courts regarding encroachments on Armenia’s territorial integrity.
- Armenia should become an active participant in the reform process of the Rome Statute’s crime of aggression, emphasizing that aggression directed against it should be condemned and receive an appropriate legal response.
Armenia must adopt a balanced and nuanced approach between acknowledging political realities and effectively furthering the use of legal tools. Legal silence not only allows the opposing side to strengthen its propaganda but also leaves the international community with incomplete and one-sided information.
Developments in international law regarding the crime of aggression provide a clear opportunity to legally prevent further aggression, and Armenia should view these opportunities as an inseparable part of its national security protection.
Gurgen Petrossian is the President of the Armenian-German Lawyers’ Association and Senior officer for international criminal law at the International Nuremberg Principles Academy.
The post Armenia must adopt a balanced approach between political realities and the use of legal tools appeared first on CIVILNET.