UNITED NATIONS ON AGGRESSION - 1950-1974

CONTENT

The same definition was presented on:

4 November 1950: fifth session
5 January 1952: sixth session
14 November 1952: seventh session

The General Assembly,

Considering it necessary, in the interests of general security and to facilitate agreement on the maximum reductions of armaments, to define the concept of aggression as accurately as possible, so as to forestall any pretext which might be used to justify it,

Recognizing that all States have equal rights to independence, security and the defence of their territory,

Inspired by the desire, in the interests of general peace, to guarantee all nations the right freely to develop by such means as are appropriate to them and at the rate which they consider to be necessary, and for that purpose to provide the fullest possible protection for their security, their independence and the integrity of their territory, and also for their right to defend themselves against aggression or invasion from without, but only within the limits of their own countries, and

Considering it necessary to formulate essential directives for such international organs as may be called upon to determine which party is guilty of attack,

Declares:

1. That in an international conflict that State shall be declared the attacker which first commits one of the following acts:
   (a) Declaration of war against another State;
   (b) Invasion by its armed forces, even without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State;
   (c) Bombardment by its land, sea or air forces of the territory of another State or the carrying out of a deliberate attack on the ships or aircraft of the latter;
   (d) The landing or leading of its land, sea or air forces inside the boundaries of another State without the permission of the government of the latter, or the violation of the conditions of such permission, particularly as regards the length of their stay or the extent of the area in which they may stay;
   (e) Naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State;
   
   

2. Attacks such as those referred to in paragraph 1 may not be justified by any arguments of a political, strategic or economic nature, or by the desire to exploit natural riches in the territory of the State attacked or to derive any other kind of advantages or privileges, or by reference to the amount of capital invested in the State attacked or to any other particular interests in its territory, or by the affirmation that the State attacked lacks the distinguishing marks of statehood;
   In particular, the following may not be used as justifications for attack:
   
   A. The internal position of any State, as, for example:
   (a) The backwardness of any nation politically, economically or culturally;
   (b) Alleged shortcomings of its administration;
   (c) Any danger which may threaten the life or property of aliens;
   (d) Any revolutionary or counter-revolutionary movement, civil war, disorders or strikes;
   (e) The establishment or maintenance in any State of any political, economic or social system;
   
   B. Any acts, legislation or orders of any State, as for example:
   (a) The violation of international treaties;
   (b) The violation of rights and interests in the sphere of trade, concessions or any other kind of economic activity acquired by another State or its citizens;
   (c) The rupture of diplomatic or economic relations;
   (d) Measures in connexion with an economic or financial boycott;
   (e) Repudiation of debts;
   (f) Prohibition or restriction of immigration or modification of the status of foreigners;
   (g) The violation of privileges granted to the official representatives of another State;
   (h) Refusal to allow the passage of armed forces proceeding to the territory of a third State;
   (i) Measures of a religious or anti-religious nature;
   (j) Frontier incidents.
   
   

3. In the event of the mobilization or concentration by another State of considerable armed forces near its frontier, the State which is threatened by such action shall have the right of recourse to diplomatic or other means of securing a peaceful settlement of international disputes. It may also in the meantime adopt requisite measures of a military nature similar to those described above, without, however, crossing the frontier.
   
   

NOT BEING ABLE TO PASS THE RESOLUTION ON AGGRESSION, UN TAKES THE FOLLOWING DECISION IS ON:
20 DECEMBER 1952.

Resolution on Aggression UN 1952

688 (VII). Question of defining aggression

The General Assembly,
Having regard to its resolution 599 (VI) of 31 January 1952,

Considering that the discussion of the question of defining aggression at the sixth and seventh sessions of the General Assembly and in the International Law Commission (7) has revealed the complexity of this question and the need for a detailed study of:

(a) The various forms of aggression,
(b) The connexion between a definition of aggression and the maintenance of international peace and security,
(c) The problems raised by the inclusion of a definition of aggression in the Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind and by its application within the framework of international criminal jurisdiction,
(d) The effect of a definition of aggression on the exercise of the jurisdiction of the various organs of the United Nations,
(e) Any other problem which might be raised by a definition of aggression,

Considering that continued and joint efforts shall be made to formulate a generally acceptable definition of aggression, with a view to promoting international peace and security and to developing international law,

Decides to establish a Special Committee of fifteen members, each representing one of the following Member States: Bolivia, Brazil, China, Dominican Republic, France, Iran, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Syria, Union of Soviet Socialist Re publics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and North ern Ireland, United States of America, to meet at the Headquarters of the United Nations in 1953; Requests the said Special Committee

(a) To submit to the General Assembly at its ninth session draft definitions of aggression or draft statements of the notion of aggression;
(b) To study all the problems referred to above on the assumption of a definition being adopted by a resolution of the General Assembly;

Requests the Secretary-General to communicate the Special Committee's report to Member States for their comments and to place the question on the provisional agenda of the ninth session of the General Assembly.
408th plenary meeting,

20 December 1952.
7 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Ses sion, Supplenient No. 9, para. 35 et seq.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/7/ares7.htm
(resolution 688 (VII) of 20 December 1952)

NOTE BY THE USSR DELEGATION AFTER THE UN’S DECISION OF 20 DECEMBER 1952

A sidelight on the Atlantic war camp’s definition of ‘aggression’ was revealed by the burmese Government when it raised in vain before the United Nations the invasion of Burma by the American-armed and equipped Kuomingtang forces under General Li. With barbed irony the Burmese delegate pleated:

I am heartened by the statements of the representatives of the United states, the United Kingdom and France that Communist aggression in South East Asia will not be tolerated. But I hope that their assurance is not only in respect of Communist aggression and that it would cover any aggression from whatever source it should come.

At the moment we are facing a Koumingtang aggression in the Eastern portion of Burma. Can Burma count on the support of these three countries and on the countries of my fellow delegates? Let it not be said that collective action of the Unites Nations is to meet Communist aggression alone.

The Burmese delegate was given his answer. In face of the admitted fact that thousands of Kuomintang, i.e. of American satellite armed forces, had invaded Burma (‘one of Chiang Kai-shek’s best battalions from Formosa has recently reinforced Kuomintang General Li Mi’s 93rd Division in Burma… there is indisputable evidence that Americans are helping the 93rd Division’. Observer, January 20, 1952), and were further, according to the Burmese delegate, ‘killing our men, taking our food, and raping our women’, the United States, British and French Government’s issued a solemn warning that if a single Chinese soldier, engaged in resisting the Kuomintang raids on Yunnan from their base in Burma, should be found anywhere to have crossed the Yunnan-Burmese frontier, this would be immediately regarded as an act of ‘aggression’ by China on Burma, and the western Powers would immediately act as in Kores. No wonder the same Western Powers of the Atlantic War Bloc strenuously resisted the wish of the majority of the United Nations Assembly for a definition of aggression to be adopted (the resolution in favour of such a definition was carried against them by 28 votes to 12). the burglar deplores the attempt to define theft.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/7/ares7.htm
(resolution 688 (VII) of 20 December 1952)

-IV-1. A Short History of the Discussions on Definition of Aggression in United Nations

The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 was the a great step on the road to reject war in international relations. That was clear in the charter of the United Nations where it states in Article 2, paragraph 4 that:All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. ([3])
This frank commitment by U.N members introduced an absolute and unconditional prohibition both to the use and the threat to use force in international disputes. Although the Charter of the United Nations does not clarify in detail the notion of aggression, this matter was unclear as a threat to peace and a breach of the peace ([4]).
According to the U.N Charter too, the Security Council –one of the main body of United Nations- has responsibility to deal with aggression as indicated by Article 39 of the Charter which read that: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".([5]) Article 39 of the Charter left "aggression" undefined, and put on the same level threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression'([6]). It does not give a definition for threat to peace either.
During the discussion concerning the draft of the U.N Charter in San Francisco Conference, some countries proposed to include definitions of aggression. There was a Bolivian proposal to define aggression similar to the Soviet proposal submitted to the Disarmament Conference in 1933([7]). However, the specialized committee in San Francisco rejected any idea to define aggression arguing that it would not be able to envisage or encompass developments in warfare, besides which it might lead to the 'premature application of enforcement measures' through 'automatic Council action'. ([8])
In its first committee on November 6, 1950, the Soviet Union revived, under the item 'Duties of States in the Event of the Outbreak of Hostilities', the substance of its draft definition of 1933. This, with related matters, was submitted in due course to the International Law Commission for its views.([9])
On November 17, 1950, in its resolution 378/B (V), the General Assembly condemned the intervention of a state in the internal affairs of another state for the purpose of changing its legally established government by the threat or use of force', and declared that 'any aggression, whether committed openly, or by fermenting civil strife in the interest of a foreign power, or otherwise, is the gravest of all crimes against peace and security throughout the world…'.([10]).
In the same resolution (378), the General Assembly ordered the International Law Commission to present some solutions to the problem of the definition of aggression. The Commission reached the conclusion that 'a juridical definition of aggression would be an artificial device, which could never be adequate enough to include all possible cases of aggression, especially since aggression methods are constantly developing'. ([11])
As a result, the Commission decided to introduce among the crimes defined in the draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind –which was under preparation by the Commission- all acts and threats of aggression, without defining what aggression is. ([12])
On November 13, 1951, the General Assembly, having placed the Report of the International Law Commission's Third Session on its agenda, referred to its Sixth Committee the question of defining aggression. ([13])
The Committee examined the issue of defining aggression at its 278th to 295th meetings held from 5 January to 22 January 1952. ([14]) At the end of these meetings, the Committee took a position opposed on the whole to that of International Law Commission, based on the view that it would be advantageous to provide "directive" for international bodies which "may be called on to determine the aggressor"([15]).
General Assembly resolution 599 (VI) of 31 January 1952 (Question of defining aggression) Report of the Secretary-General on the question of defining aggression. Resolution said that it was:
'possible and desirable, with a view to ensuing international peace and security and for the development of international criminal law, to define aggression by reference to the elements which constitute it'. ([16])
As resolution 599 emphasized the desirability of a definition, the resolution also ordered to establish a series of Special Committees to work on the definition of aggression. After seven sessions, the fourth Special Committee of the General Assembly submitted a Report of a proposed definition of aggression to the General Assembly. According to this Report, the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly found that the proposed resolution is acceptable and commended the General Assembly to adopt it. But, the United States of America and many other states saw that the definition was inappropriate because it gave the Security Council the plenipotentiary to determine whether aggression has taken place ([17]). On December 20, 1952, General Assembly –according to its resolution 688 (VII)- established a special Committee composed of fifteen members, to work on the subject of the definition of aggression. After a great deal of work, the Committee came to the conclusion that it will not submit the draft of the proposed definition to a vote procedure. Instead, it will demonstrate the proposals to the members of United Nations.([18])
In December 4, 1954, the General Assembly, in its resolution 895 (IX), decided to establish a Special Committee composed of nineteen members, charged with studying the definition of aggression and requested the Committee 'to submit to the General Assembly at its eleventh session a detailed report followed by a draft definition of aggression'. ([19]) Another time, the Committee admitted that there were considerable difference of opinion and therefore could only refer the question to the General Assembly XI Session. ([20])
At the same session, the International Law Commission adopted the revised draft Code of Offences against Peace and Security of Mankind, with Commentaries. (21]) In relation to aggression, the Code stated that([22]):
"The following acts are offences against peace and security of mankind: (1) Any act of aggression, including the employment by the authorities of a state armed force against another State, for any purpose other than national or collective self-defence or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation of a competent organ of the United Nations.
(2) Any threat by the authorities of a state to resort to an act of aggression against another State".
During the works of United Nations eleventh session, the Special Committee held a meeting from 8 October to 9 November 1956. The Committee did not adopt a definition but decided to transmit its report to the General Assembly, summarizing the views expressed on the various aspects of the matter, together with draft definitions previously submitted to it. ([23])
On 29 November 1957, the General Assembly, at its twelfth session, discussed the Special Committee's report which was concluded in its resolution 1181 (XII) deciding to invite the views of 22 states admitted to United Nations since 14 December 1955, and again comments from other Member States of United Nations. It also decided to establish a new Committee, after seeking the opinion of governments about it. The committee was composed of the Member States which had served on the General Committee of the Assembly at its most recent regular session. The main remit of the New Committee was to study the replies 'for the purpose of determining when its shall be appropriate for the General Assembly to consider again the question of defining aggression'([24]).
In the light of this position of the United Nations, and the consideration that the draft Code submitted by the Special Committee still raised problems relating to the question of defining aggression. The General Assembly in its resolution 1186 (XII) of 11 December 1957, postponed consideration of the draft Code, and decided to rediscuss the question of defining aggression ([25]).
The General Assembly also decided to forward the draft Code to the member governments in the United Nations to give their comments and to deliver their replies to the General Assembly. Since then, the draft Code did not appear on the General Assembly Agenda ([26]).
The Special Committee of the General Assembly which held its meetings from 14 to 24 April 1959, decided that the governments replies relating to the draft code didn’t comprise any change of attitude and agreed to defer any discussion related to the question of defining aggression until 1962. The Special Committee held meetings in 1962, 1965, and 1967, but was unable to determine any specific time suitable for the General Assembly to resume its discussion about the question of defining aggression ([27]).
In 1967, the Special Committee works came to an end when General Assembly decided to rediscuss the question of aggression . ([28])
In December 18, 1967, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2330 (XXII), in which it decided to establish a new Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression.([29]) The Committee included thirty-five Member States, "to consider all aspects of the question so that an adequate definition of aggression may be prepared".([30])
After Seven sessions held between 1968- 1974, the Special Committee adopted a draft definition of aggression and recommended it to the General Assembly to adopt it. ([31])

Committee: 6
Vote: Adopted without a vote
Ref: 3105(XXVIII), 2967(XXVII), 2781(XXVII), 2644(XXV), 2549(XXIV), 2420(XXIII), 2330(XXII), 1181(XII), 895(IX), 688(VII), 599(VI)

The General Assembly,
Having considered the report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression, established pursuant to its resolution 2330(XXII) of 18 December 1967, covering the work of its seventh session held from 11 March to 12 April 1974, including the draft Definition of Aggression adopted by the Special Committee by consensus and recommended for adoption by the General Assembly,[FN1] Deeply, convinced that the adoption of the Definition of Aggression would contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security,

1. Approves the Definition of Aggression, the text of which is annexed to the present resolution;
   
2. Expresses its appreciation to the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression for its work which resulted in the elaboration of the Definition of Aggression;
   
3. Calls upon all States to refrain from all acts of aggression and other uses of force contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;[FN2]
   
4. Calls the attention of the Security Council to the Definition of Aggression, as set out below, and recommends that it should, as appropriate, take account of that Definition as guidance in determination, in accordance with the Charter, the existence of an act of aggression.
   

2319th plenary meeting
14 December 1974

Annex:
Definition of Aggression

The General Assembly,

Basing itself on the fact that one of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,

Recalling that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations, shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security,

Recalling also the duty of States under the Charter to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in order not to endanger international peace, security and justice,

Bearing in mind that nothing in this Definition shall be interpreted as in any way affecting the scope of the provisions of the Charter with respect to the functions and powers of the organs of the United Nations,

Considering also that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independencUNITED NATIONS ON AGGRESSION - 1950-1974e, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,

Reaffirming also that the territory of a State shall not be violated by being the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State in contravention of the Charter, and that it shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from such measures or the threat thereof, Reaffirming also the provisions of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Convinced that the adoption of a definition of aggression ought to have the effect of deterring a potential aggressor, would simplify the determination of acts of aggression and the implementation of measures to suppress them and would also facilitate the protection of the rights and lawful interests of, and the rendering of assistance to, the victim,

Believing that, although the question whether an act of aggression has been committed must be considered in the light of all the circumstances of each particular case, it is nevertheless desirable to formulate basic principles as guidance for such determination,

Article I

Aggression is 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, as set out in this Definition. Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.

Article 2

The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.

Article 3

Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

Article 4

The acts enumerated above are not exhaustive and the Security Council may determine that other acts constitute aggression under the provisions of the Charter.

Article 5

1. No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.
   
2. A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.
   
3. No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful.
   
   

Article 6

Nothing in this Definition shall be construed as in any way enlarging or diminishing the scope of the Charter, including its provisions concerning cases in which the use of force is lawful.

Article 7

Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.

Article 8

In their interpretation and application the above provisions are interrelated and each provision should be construed in the context of the other provisions.

FOOTNOTES

1. Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 19 (A/9619 and Corr. 1).
   
2. Resolution 2625 (XXV), annex.
   
3. Explanatory notes on articles 3 and 5 are to be found in paragraph 20 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression (Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-ninth Session,
   Supplement No. 19 (A/9619 and Corr. 1). Statements on the Definition are contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the report of the Sixth Committee (A/9890).