At last, a law that could have stopped Blair and Bush invading Iraq

The Hague’s new crime of aggression might give belligerent heads of states a reason to pause

‘Had this been an offence back in 2003, Tony Blair would have been bang to rights, together with senior numbers of his cabinet and some British military commanders.’ George W Bush and Tony Blair shake in 2001. Photograph: Mario Tama/EPA

Tuesday is a red-letter day for international law: from then on, political and military leaders who order the invasion of foreign countries will be guilty of the crime of aggression, and may be punishable at the international criminal court in The Hague.

Had this been an offence back in 2003, Tony Blair would have been bang to rights, together with senior numbers of his cabinet and some British military commanders. But if that were the case, of course, they would not have gone ahead; George W Bush would have been without his willing UK accomplices.

The judgment at Nuremberg declared that “to initiate a war of aggression … is the supreme international crime”. But this concept never entered UK law (as the misguided crowdfunded effort to prosecute Blair discovered last year).

International acceptance of it stalled until states could agree on an up-to-date definition.

The crime was included in the ICC jurisdiction back in 1998, but was suspended until its elements could be decided (in 2010) then ratified by at least 30 states (in 2016).

At last it is finally being “activated”.

In the meantime, Iraq and Ukraine have been invaded and other countries threatened, while Donald Trump attacked Syria last year. Now, the very existence of the crime of aggression offers some prospect of deterrence, and some degree of certainty in identifying the criminals.

Read more at UK Guardian

. . .

About VT Editors
VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. Let me guess, We are to believe that Law in the West is just like that Lady with the scales, Fair and Just ???? Nice try but I’m not biting.

  2. Trump does not rely on USA intelligence vs Rusia as he KNOWS that Bush and Blair did have the wrong information ( or so it was said) about weapons of mass destruction.
    CNN disgusting , they are colluded against their own president.
    Blair ,Bush and Netanyahu should be brought to trial for not respecting human rights and invading other countries under false pretences.

  3. The court is a joke. It does the bidding of the West yet the leader (USA) of the “free Western World” doesn’t even recognize it. Israel doesn’t either. So, the leaders of the 2 counties which continually use military force and acts of aggression, always against against smaller poor, Muslim and/or brown countries have nothing to fear. Business as usual.

  4. Are Iraq and Crimea , the same forms of aggression ? There seems to be media concensus that Crimea was an annexation,. but I wonder if anyone has it as a secession ?

    The ICC needs more member states, namely, the US.

Comments are closed.