RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Act of Aggression (Article 8 bisª)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state. There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.
(COMMENT)
The Israelis did not plan, prepare, initiate or execute, political control or military action over a State known as "Palestine."
( ∑ )
.
I get the distinct impression that you simply do not know what the meaning of "Aggression" means relative to a prosecutorial crime. The creation of the State of Israel was realized through the act of Self-Determination.
When you say "Act of Aggression" - give us a date for that act and when the sovereign people of Palestine were injured by Israel... Be specific... So that we all can discuss it from the same perspective.
You see, I don't think you can identify an Act of Aggression perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian People having sovereignty over a given territory. The element of the offense: "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
ª For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
As amended by resolution RC/Res.6; see Official Records of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May -11 June 2010 (International Criminal Court publication, RC/11), part II.
Crime of aggression
Introduction
Elements
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBTOPIC: Act of Aggression (Article 8 bisª)
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
BLUF: The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) did NOT fall under an independent state. There was no such entity as the Israelis prior to May 1948.
.All of that blabber does not change the fact that all of the Palestinian's actions are a response to Israeli aggression.
(COMMENT)
The Israelis did not plan, prepare, initiate or execute, political control or military action over a State known as "Palestine."
.
I get the distinct impression that you simply do not know what the meaning of "Aggression" means relative to a prosecutorial crime. The creation of the State of Israel was realized through the act of Self-Determination.
When you say "Act of Aggression" - give us a date for that act and when the sovereign people of Palestine were injured by Israel... Be specific... So that we all can discuss it from the same perspective.
You see, I don't think you can identify an Act of Aggression perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian People having sovereignty over a given territory. The element of the offense: "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,"
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
ª For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
As amended by resolution RC/Res.6; see Official Records of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May -11 June 2010 (International Criminal Court publication, RC/11), part II.
Crime of aggression
Introduction
1. It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as an act of aggression.
2. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.
4. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as to the “manifest” nature of the violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
Elements
1. The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.
2. The perpetrator was a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of the State which committed the act of aggression.
3. The act of aggression – the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.
4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
5. The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
Most Respectfully,
R