It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as an act of aggression.

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.

The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.

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.

The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.

The perpetrator was a person1 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.

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.

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.

The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.