The International  Criminal Court, ICC, have added a new qualifying crime to end up on their  docket; the crime of aggression. This would in effect allow politicians and  military leaders to be held individually responsible for invasions and attacks on other sovereign nations. Crucially, the amendments allowing this to go in effect does not allow it to be claim retroactively, meaning that it  will only be able to be for activity takes place in the future. Thirty-five  nations have already signed the amendment, making them immediately liable to  the provisions of the crime of aggression. Yet even if a particular nation  does not sign the amendment, there are secondary mechanisms for the  allegations to appear before the ICC.

Sheryn Omeri, a London barrister who has worked at the ICC, said:  “Symbolically, the aggression amendments and their ratification have had an  important normative effect in the sense that there now is a stigma that can  be attached to the actions of people even if prosecution, imprisonment or  other punishment doesn’t follow.”

Much like the other provisions establishing the ICC, many actions and  announcements by the Court hold a very high level of deterrence for nations  across the globe. Just the potential for being sought out on charges for crimes such as Aggression may prevent harmful actions done by a particular individual or nation. However, critics of the amendment see it as being  pushed through without careful investigation of the potential impacts of the  provision. Also, many nations who are opposed to the amendment instead would  prefer the UN security council to retain the main responsibility for  maintaining international peace, and not the ICC.