 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Crime of aggression Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Crime of aggression |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Crime against peace page were merged into Crime of aggression on 2 March 2022 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Untitled
editYes, I have a question that could perhaps be addressed in this article. With regards to the responsibility for committing war crimes. In the example in the last paragraph: "Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars". Would those tried be only of the executive branches of governments or perhaps too of the legislative or law and authorizing branches? In the case of the US, its congress. Could they too be considered war criminals committing the crime against peace? 67.53.78.55Shootie2HUNT 29/10/06
The President sought and recieved Congressional authority to invade Iraq, so Congress authorized this war and Congress has the primary responsibility.
The war was undertaken under Article 51 authority. The requirement of notification was met, and all Security Council directions since have been complied with, so there are no violations of international law to discuss.
Blatant POV pushing
editWhy is this being used to push anti-Bush propaganda? Jtrainor 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Tamils
editWhat's up with the lone "See also" link at the bottom? Why that one, and why is that the only one?
Original research?
editArticle says: "No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their face value would seem to disclose the following:" (definitions follow). This would seem to me to be a textbook example of original research. Comments? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ecocide section
editThis section has largely been created by a new user who appears to be one of the authors of the cited source (Gauger et al.). It also discusses the work of coauthor Higgins. An independent secondary source is needed to establish that these sources are worthy of note. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that one looks strange to me. Ecocide is something very much different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. "Crime against peace" is by definition a conspiracy to commit war of aggression. Ecocide is destruction of environment, not necessarily during the war. Therefore, according to quoted sources, ecocide was never officially considered a crime against peace. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think 'crimes of peace' in that article is based on the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind, which was the only draft code to include a 'crime against the environment'. The authors must've either: (1) assumed ecocide was thus a crime against peace because it is supposedly not a crime against security of mankind, or (2) just shortened the phrase crimes against peace and security of mankind to 'crimes of peace'. In any case ecocide is not refered by this name in any official (UN) documentation.Perudotes (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. "Crime against peace" is by definition a conspiracy to commit war of aggression. Ecocide is destruction of environment, not necessarily during the war. Therefore, according to quoted sources, ecocide was never officially considered a crime against peace. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Examples
editObviously, we must provide some examples. I restored some of them sourced to an academic secondary RS: [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's nothing more than blatant POV and cherry-picking in violation of WP:NPOV. No tribunal to date has defined those "examples" as such, nor did most scholars. The source is the notoriously biased, factually incorrect and much-criticized introduction by Stéphane Courtois, who is infamous for his strong political bias, and is reflecting his personal POV. Do not add cherry-picked "examples", let alone those taken from such dubious and controversial sources like that and not universally accepted by scholars, as it would ruin the neutrality of the article and make those "examples" look like crimes against peace par excellence. 119.17.193.5 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Development in Crime against peace
editit is considerable that with the enlargement of the concept of peace,after the end of the cold war ,obviously the domain of this crime(Crime against peace )increase too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.222.60 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)