Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law, 4th edn (Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Bassiouni, M. C., The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court, vol. I (3 vols., Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 2005).Google Scholar

Cassese, A., International Criminal Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Didion, J., ‘Salvador’, in We Tell Ourselves Stories in Order to Live: Collected Nonfiction (New York: A. A. Knopf, 2006).Google Scholar

Gallant, K. S., The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Gardiner, R., Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Grover, L., Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Jennings, R. and Watts, R., Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edn (Harlow: Longman, 1992).Google Scholar

Kittichaisaree, K., International Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

MacCormick, D. N. and Summers, R. S. (eds.), Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1991).Google Scholar

Nolte, G. (ed.), Treaties and Subsequent Practice (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Rescher, N., Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition (Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Schabas, W. A., An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

Schabas, W. A., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Schachter, O., International Law in Theory and Practice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991).Google Scholar

Thirlway, H. W. A., International Customary Law and Codification (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1972).Google Scholar

Villiger, M. E., Customary International Law and Treaties (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985).Google Scholar

Villiger, M. E., Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009).Google Scholar

Werle, G., Principles of International Criminal Law (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser, 2005).Google Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘Some Preliminary Reflections on the Mens Rea Requirements of the Crimes in the ICC Statute and the Elements of Crimes’, in Vohrah, L. C. et al. (eds.), Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law, 2003), 11–40.Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Negotiating the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 3–57.Google Scholar

Bitti, G., ‘Article 21 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Treatment of Sources of Law in the Jurisprudence of the ICC’, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G. (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 285–304.Google Scholar

Boot, M., Dixon, R. and Hall, C. K. (revised by Hall, C. K.), ‘Article 7’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 2008), 159–273.Google Scholar

Broomhall, B., ‘Article 22’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 2008), 713–29.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Article 9’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 2008), 505–29.Google Scholar

Dörr, O., ‘General Rule of Interpretation’, in Dörr, O. and Schmalenbach, K. (eds.), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Berlin: Springer, 2012), 521–70.Google Scholar

Kirsch, P., ‘The Work of the Preparatory Commission’, in Lee, R. S. et al. (eds.), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 2001), xlv–lv.Google Scholar

Kirsch, P., ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law, its Enforcement, and the Role of the International Criminal Court’, in Maybee, L. and Chakka, B. (eds.), Custom as a Source of International Humanitarian Law (New Delhi: International Committee of the Red Cross, 2006), 79–86.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2008–), online edition, available at: www.mpepilcom.Google Scholar

Kreβ, C., Barriga, S., Grover, L. and von Holtzendorff, L., ‘Negotiating the Understandings on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2011), 81–97.Google Scholar

Pellet, A., ‘Applicable Law’, in Cassese, A. et al. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. II (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2002), 1051–84.Google Scholar

Schabas, W. A., ‘Criminal Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights’, in Symonides, J. (ed.), Human Rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement (Paris: UNESCO, 2003), 281–302.Google Scholar

Schachter, O., ‘Entangled Treaty and Custom’, in Dinstein, Y. (ed.), International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), 717–38.Google Scholar

Triffterer, O., ‘Article 10’, in Triffterer, O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 2008), 531–37.Google Scholar

Triffterer, O., ‘Can the “Elements of Crimes” Narrow or Broaden Responsibility for Criminal Behaviour defined in the Rome Statute?’, in Stahn, C. and Sluiter, G. (eds.), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 381–400.Google Scholar

von Hebel, H., ‘The Decision to Include Elements of Crimes in the Rome Statute’, in Lee, R. S. et al. (eds.), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 2001), 3–8.Google Scholar

von Hebel, H. and Robinson, D., ‘Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court’, in Lee, R. S. (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (The Hague: Kluwer Law, 1999), 79–126.Google Scholar

von Hebel, H. and Robinson, D., ‘Reflections on the Elements of Crimes’, in Lee, R. S. (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 219–31.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘Interpreting Criminal Statutes: A Crisis of Legality?’, Law Quarterly Review, 107 (1991), 419–49.Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Grover, L., ‘A Historic Breakthrough on the Crime of Aggression’, American Journal of International Law, 105 (2011), 517–33.Google Scholar

Baxter, R., ‘Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law, 41 (1965–66), 275–300.Google Scholar

Benatar, M., ‘From Probative Value to Authentic Interpretation: The Legal Effects of Interpretative Declarations’, Revue Belge de Droit International, 44 (2011), 170–96.Google Scholar

Cassese, A., ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’, European Journal of International Law, 10 (1999), 144–71.Google Scholar

Chodosh, H., ‘An Interpretive Theory of International Law: The Distinction Between Treaty and Customary Law’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 28 (1995), 973–1068.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., ‘Interaction between Customary International Law and Treaties’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 322 (2006), 243–427.Google Scholar

Dörmann, K., ‘Contributions by the Ad Hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to the Ongoing Work on Elements of Crimes in the Context of the ICC’, ASIL Proceedings, 94 (2000), 284–86.Google Scholar

Gaeta, P., ‘May Necessity be Available as a Defence for Torture in the Interrogation of Suspected Terrorists?’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2 (2004), 785–94.Google Scholar

Glaser, S., ‘Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’, Journal of Comparative Legislation & International Law, 24 (1942), 29–37.Google Scholar

Glennon, M. J., ‘The Blank-Prose Crime of Aggression’, Yale Journal of International Law, 35 (2010), 71–114.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, A. E., ‘The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, Revisited’, American Journal of Criminal Law, 30 (2003), 279–313.Google Scholar

Grover, L., ‘A Call to Arms: Fundamental Dilemmas Confronting the Interpretation of Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, European Journal of International Law, 21 (2010), 543–83.Google Scholar

Hall, J., ‘Nulla Poena Sine Lege’, Yale Law Journal, 47 (1937), 165–93.Google Scholar

Heller, K. J., ‘Retreat from Nuremberg: The Leadership Requirement in the Crime of Aggression’, European Journal of International Law, 18 (2007), 477–97.Google Scholar

Heller, K. J., ‘The Uncertain Legal Status of the Aggression Understandings’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 229–48.Google Scholar

Hogg, P. W. and Zwibel, C. F., ‘The Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of Canada’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 55 (2005), 715–32.Google Scholar

Jeffries, J. C. Jr., ‘Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes’, Virginia Law Review, 71 (1985), 189–245.Google Scholar

Jeßberger, F., ‘Bad Torture – Good Torture? What International Criminal Lawyers may Learn from the Recent Trial of Police Officers in Germany’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3 (2005), 1059–73.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘The Crime of Aggression before the First Review of the ICC Statute’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 20 (2007), 851–65.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Time for Decision: Some Thoughts on the Immediate Future of the Crime of Aggression: A Reply to Andreas Paulus’, European Journal of International Law, 20 (2009), 1129–46.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Remarks’, ASIL Proceedings, 105 (2011), 160–62.Google Scholar

Kreß, C. and von Holtzendorff, L., ‘The Kampala Compromise on the Crime of Aggression’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8 (2010), 1179–1217.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H., ‘Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties’, British Yearbook of International Law, 26 (1949), 48–85.Google Scholar

Lietzau, W. K., ‘Checks and Balances and Elements of Proof: Structural Pillars for the International Criminal Court’, Cornell International Law Journal, 32 (1999), 477–88.Google Scholar

McCarl, R., ‘Incoherent and Indefensible: An Interdisciplinary Critique of the Supreme Court’s “Void-for-Vagueness” Doctrine’, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 42 (2014), 73–94.Google Scholar

McRae, D. M., ‘The Legal Effect of Interpretative Declarations’, British Yearbook of International Law, 49 (1978), 155–73.Google Scholar

Milanovic, M., ‘Aggression and Legality: Custom in Kampala’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 165–87.Google Scholar

Milanovic, M., ‘Is the Rome Statute Binding on Individuals? (and Why We Should Care)’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 9 (2011), 25–52.Google Scholar

Murphy, S. D., ‘Aggression, Legitimacy and the International Criminal Court’, European Journal of International Law, 20 (2010), 1147–56.Google Scholar

Öberg, M. D., ‘The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ’, European Journal of International Law, 16 (2006), 879–906.Google Scholar

Orentlicher, D. F., ‘Criminalizing Hate Speech in the Crucible of Trial: Prosecutor v. Nahimana’, New England Journal of International & Comparative Law, 12 (2005), 17–50.Google Scholar

Paulus, A., ‘Second Thoughts on the Crime of Aggression’, European Journal of International Law, 20 (2010), 1117–28.Google Scholar

Sadat, L. N., ‘Custom, Codification and Some Thoughts about the Relationship Between the Two: Article 10 of the ICC Statute’, DePaul Law Review, 49 (2000), 909–23.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘“In General a Principle of Justice”: The Debate on the “Crime against Peace” in the Wake of the Nuremberg Judgment’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 41–58.Google Scholar

Weil, P., ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’, American Journal of International Law, 77 (1983), 413–42.Google Scholar

Cantoni v. France, App. No. 17862/91, ECHR, 1996-V, No. 20.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Reports (2005), 168.Google Scholar

Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973).Google Scholar

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 US 104 (1972).Google Scholar

Hill v. Colorado, 530 US 703 (2000).Google Scholar

Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 US 489 (1982).Google Scholar

House of Lords, R v. Jones et al. [2006] UKHL 16.Google Scholar

Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, STL-11-01/I, 16 February 2011.Google Scholar

International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Judgment, 1 October 1946, American Journal of International Law, 41 (1947), 172.Google Scholar

Kenya Situation, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09, 31 March 2010.Google Scholar

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983).Google Scholar

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (1986), 14.Google Scholar

Nahimana and Others v. Prosecutor, Judgment, ICTR-99-52-A, 28 November 2007.Google Scholar

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Germany v. The Netherlands), ICJ Reports (1969), 3.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Al-Bashir, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmand Al-Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/094, 4 March 2009.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08, 15 June 2009.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese, ICTY-96-22-A, 7 October 1997.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Final System of Disclosure and the Establishment of a Timetable, ICC-01/04-01/06, 15 May 2006.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of the Pre-Trial Chamber I’s 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal, ICC-01/04-168, 13 July 2006.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the Practices of Witness Familiarisation and Witness Proofing, ICC-01/04-01/06, 8 November 2006.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, ICTY-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995.Google Scholar

Screws v. United States, 325 US 91 (1945).Google Scholar

Smith v. United States, 431 US 291 (1977).Google Scholar

Winters v. New York, 333 US 507 (1948).Google Scholar

Assembly of States Parties, Elements of Crimes, adopted 9 September 2002, ICC-ASP/1/3 (part II-B).Google Scholar

Coalition for the International Criminal Court, ‘Report of the CICC Team on the Crime of Aggression’ (2005).Google Scholar

‘Final Act of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF/183/13.Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Fourth Report on the Law of Treaties’, Yb ILC (1965), vol. II, 49.Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Guidelines on Reservations to a Provision Reflective a Customary Norm’, Yb ILC (2007), vol. II(2).Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties with Commentaries’, Yb ILC (2011), vol. II(2), 1.Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Report on the Work of its Sixty-Third Session (26 April to 3 June and 4 July to 12 August 2011)’, GAOR Supp. No. 10 (A/66/10 and Add.1) 553.Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Reports of the International Law Commission on the Second Part of its Seventeenth Session and on its Eighteenth Session’, Yb ILC (1966), vol. II, 169.Google Scholar

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 19 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976), 999 UNTS 171.Google Scholar

Koh, H. H., Statement at the Review Conference of the International Criminal Court, ICC Review Conference, 4 June 2010, available at: www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/142665.htm.Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, M., ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission’, 4 April 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar

Preparatory Commission, Working Group on the Crime of Aggression (Secretariat), ‘Historical Review of Developments relating to Aggression’, Parts I and II, 18 and 24 January 2002, UN Doc. PCNICC/2002/WGCA/L.1/Add.1.Google Scholar

Preparatory Committee, ‘Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court’, ‘Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ (1998) UN Doc. A/CONF.183/2/Add.1.Google Scholar

United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property (adopted 2 December 2004, not in force), UN Doc. A/RES/59/38, Annex.Google Scholar

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980), 1155 UNTS 331.Google Scholar

Waldock, H., ‘Sixth Report on the Law of Treaties’, Yb ILC (1966), vol. II, 51.Google Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘The Concept and the Rule of Law’, Paper read at the NYU Colloquium in Legal, Political and Social Theory, 14 September 2006 (on file with author).Google Scholar

Ader, W., Gewaltsame Rettungsmaßnahmen zum Schutz eigener Staatsangehöriger im Ausland (Munich: Verlag V. Florentz, 1988).Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law: The Crimes and Sentencing, vol. II (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Aust, H. P., Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Avirgan, T. and Honey, M., War in Uganda. The Legacy of Idi Amin (London: Zed Press, 1982).Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Kreß, C., The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Bennouna, M., Le consentement à l’ingérence militaire dans les conflits internes (Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1974).Google Scholar

Biggar, N., In Defence of War (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Boister, N. and Cryer, R., Documents on the Tokyo International Military Trial. Charter, Indictment and Judgments (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Bowett, B., Self-Defence in International Law (Manchester University Press, 1958).Google Scholar

Brownlie, I., International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

Bruha, T., Die Definition der Aggression. Faktizität und Normativität des UN-Konsensbildungsprozesses der Jahre 1968 bis 1974 zugleich ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse des Völkerrechts (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1980).Google Scholar

Cassese, A., International Criminal Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., Baig, L., Fan, M., Gosnell, C. and Whiting, A., Cassese’s International Criminal Law, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Chayes, A., The Cuban Missile Crisis (Oxford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

Clark Arend, A. and Beck, R. J., International Law and the Use of Force (London: Routledge, 1993).Google Scholar

Corten, O., The Law Against War. The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Oxford: Hart, 2012).Google Scholar

Crawford, J., The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Crawford, J., The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D. and Wilmshurst, E., An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 3rd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

De Ruiter, D. and van der Wolf, W. (eds.), Aggression and International Criminal Law (The Hague: International Courts Association, 2011).Google Scholar

de Wet, E., The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council (Oxford: Hart, 2004).Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, L. (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

Fabre, C. and Lazar, S. (eds.), The Morality of Defensive War (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Falk, R. A. (ed.), The Vietnam War and International Law, vol. I (4 vols., Princeton University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

Ferencz, B. B., Defining International Aggression. A Documentary History and Analysis (2 vols., Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1975).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P. and Ohlin, J. D., Defending Humanity: When Force is Justified and Why (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Franck, T. M., Recourse to Force. State Action against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Gardam, J., Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States (Cambridge University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

Gazzini, T., The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law (Manchester: Juris Publishing/Manchester University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Genoni, M. A. M., Die Notwehr im Völkerrecht (Zurich: Schulthess, 1987).Google Scholar

Gray, C., International Law and the Use of Force, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Green, J., The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law (Oxford: Hart, 2009).Google Scholar

Greenwood, C., Essays on War in International Law (London: Cameron & May, 2006).Google Scholar

Gutierrez Espada, C., El Estado de Necesidad y el Uso de la Fuerza en Derecho Internacional (Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, 1987).Google Scholar

Heller, K. J., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Henderson, C., The Persistent Advocate and the Use of Force. The Impact of the United States upon the Jus ad Bellum in the Post-Cold War Era (Surrey: Ashgate, 2010).Google Scholar

Higgins, R., Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

Hummrich, M., Der völkerrechtliche Straftatbestand der Aggression (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001).Google Scholar

Jennings, R. and Watts, A., Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th edn, vol. I (2 vols., London: Longman, 1992).Google Scholar

Kammerhofer, J., Uncertainty in International Law. A Kelsenian Perspective (London: Routledge, 2011).Google Scholar

Kamto, K., L’Aggression en droit international (Paris: Editions A. Pedone, 2010).Google Scholar

Kelsen, H., Recent Trends in the Law of the United Nations (London: Stevens, 1951).Google Scholar

Klintworth, G., Vietnam’s Intervention in Cambodia (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1989).Google Scholar

Kolb, R., Ius contra Bellum. Le droit international relatif au maintien de la paix, 2nd edn (Basel and Brussels: Helbing Lichtenhahn and Bruylant, 2009).Google Scholar

Kreß, C., Gewaltverbot und Selbstverteidigungsrecht nach der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen bei staatlicher Verwicklung in Gewaltakte Privater (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1995).Google Scholar

Krisch, N., Selbstverteidigung und kollektive Sicherheit (Berlin: Springer, 2001).Google Scholar

Kühn, M., Unilaterale Präventive Selbstverteidigung – Eine Untersuchung zur ‘präventiven Selbstverteidigung’ im Völkerrecht (Frankfurt am Main: Res Publica, 2009).Google Scholar

Lamberti Zanardi, P. L., La Legittima Difesa nel Diritto Internazionale (Milan: A. Giufrè, 1972).Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H. (ed.), International Law. A Treatise by L. Oppenheim, 7th edn, vol. II (2 vols., New York: David McKay, 1952).Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H. (ed.), Oppenheim’s International Law. A Treatise, 8th edn, vol. I (2 vols., London: Longmans, 1955).Google Scholar

Lieblich, E., International Law and Civil War. Intervention and Consent (London: Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar

Lubell, N., Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

McDougall, C., The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Melzer, N. (ed.), Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 2009).Google Scholar

Murphy, S. D., Kidane, W. and Snider, T. R., Litigating War. Arbitration of Civil Injury by the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Nolte, G., Eingreifen auf Einladung (Berlin: Springer, 1999).Google Scholar

Nyiri, N., The United Nation’s Search for a Definition of Aggression (New York: Peter Lang, 1989).Google Scholar

Panzera, A. F., Attivita’ Terroristiche e Diritto Internazionale (Naples: Editore Jovene, 1978).Google Scholar

Pillitu, P. A., Lo Stato di Necessità nel Diritto Internazionale (Perugia: Università di Perugia. Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, 1981).Google Scholar

Politi, M. and Nesi, G. (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).Google Scholar

Pompe, C., Aggressive War an International Crime (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1953).Google Scholar

Reymond, J., L’Attribution de comportements d’organes de facto et d’agents de l’etat en droit international. Etude sur la responsabilité internationale des etats (Geneva: Editions Schulthess, 2013).Google Scholar

Rifaat, A. M., International Aggression. A Study of the Legal Concept: Its Development and Definition in International Law (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1979).Google Scholar

Ruys, T., ‘Armed Attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Sayapin, S., The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law. Historical Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State (The Hague: Asser Press/Springer, 2014).Google Scholar

Schiffbauer, B., Vorbeugende Selbstverteidigung im Völkerrecht. Eine systematische Ermittlung des gegenwärtigen friedenssicherungsrechtlichen Besitzstandes aus völkerrechtsdogmatischer und praxisanalytischer Sicht (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2012).Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., (ed.), Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Prepared by the International Group of Experts at the Invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Sellars, K., Crimes Against Peace and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Solera, O., Defining the Crime of Aggression (London: Cameron May, 2007).Google Scholar

Stone, J., Aggression and World Order. A Critique of United Nations Theories of Aggression (London: Stevens, 1958).Google Scholar

Tesón, F. R., Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality, 2nd edn (Irvington-on-Hudson: Transnational, 1997).Google Scholar

Wandscher, C., Internationaler Terrorismus und Selbstverteidigungsrecht (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006).Google Scholar

Weller, M., Iraq and the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Werle, G. and Jeßberger, F., Principles of International Criminal Law, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Wheeler, N. J., Saving Strangers. Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Wilson, H. A., International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements (Oxford University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

Wilson, P., Aggression, Crime and International Security. Moral, Political and Legal Dimensions of International Relations (New York: Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar

Anggadi, F., French, G. and Potter, J., ‘Negotiating the Elements of the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 58–97.Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Negotiating the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 3–57.Google Scholar

Besson, S., ‘Sovereignty’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IX (10 vols. and index, Oxford University Press, 2012), 366–91.Google Scholar

Blokker, N., ‘Outsourcing the Use of Force: Towards More Security Council Control of Authorized Operations?’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 202–26.Google Scholar

Bowett, D. W., ‘The Use of Force to Protect Nationals Abroad’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Current Regulation of the Use of Force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1986), 39–55.Google Scholar

Brownlie, I., ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, in Moore, J. N. (ed.), Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 217–28.Google Scholar

Brownlie, I., ‘The Principle of Non-Use of Force in Contemporary International Law’, in Butler, W. E. (ed.), The Non-Use of Force in International Law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), 17–27.Google Scholar

Byers, M. and Chesterman, S., ‘Changing the Rules about Rules? Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention and the Future of International Law’, in Holzgrefe, J. L. and Keohane, R. O. (eds.), Humanitarian Intervention. Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 177–203.Google Scholar

Corten, O., ‘Necessity’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 861–78.Google Scholar

Darcy, S., ‘Retaliation and Reprisal’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 879–96.Google Scholar

Deeks, A. S., ‘Taming the Doctrine of Pre-Emption’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 661–78.Google Scholar

Dekker, I. F. and Werner, W. G., ‘The Crime of Aggression and the Eritrea–Ethiopia Armed Conflict’, in de Guttry, A., Post, H. H. G. and Venturini, G. (eds.), The 1998–2000 War between Eritrea and Ethiopia. An International Legal Perspective (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser, 2009), 243–57.Google Scholar

Dominicé, C., ‘Attribution of Conduct to Multiple States and the Implication of a State in the Act of Another State’, in Crawford, J., Pellet, A. and Olleson, S. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press, 2010), 281–89.Google Scholar

Emerton, P. and Handfield, T., ‘Understanding the Political Defensive Privilege’, in Fabre, C. and Lazar, S. (eds.), The Morality of Defensive War (Oxford University Press, 2014), 40–68.Google Scholar

Falk, R. A., ‘The Cambodian Operation and International Law’, in Falk, R. A. (ed.), The Vietnam War and International Law, vol. III (4 vols., Princeton University Press, 1972), 33–57.Google Scholar

Fife, R. E., ‘Criminalizing Individuals for Acts of Aggression Committed by States’, in Bergsmo, M. (ed.), Human Rights and Criminal Justice for the Downtrodden. Essays in Honour of Asbjørn Eide (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003), 53–73.Google Scholar

Forteau, M., ‘Rescuing Nationals Abroad’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 947–61.Google Scholar

Fox, G. H., ‘Intervention by Invitation’, in Weller, M. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 816–40.Google Scholar

Gaja, G., ‘The Long Journey towards Repressing Aggression’, in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P. and Jones, J. R. W. D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. I (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2002), 427–41.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘Military Intervention at the Invitation of a Government’, in Gill, T. D. and Fleck, D. (eds.), Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations (Oxford University Press, 2010), 229–32.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘When Does Self-Defence End?’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 736–51.Google Scholar

Gray, C., ‘The Protection of Nationals Abroad: Russia’s Use of Force in Georgia’, in Constantinides, A. and Zaikos, N. (eds.), The Diversity of International Law. Essays in Honour of Professor Kalliopi K. Koufa (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 133–51.Google Scholar

Gray, C., ‘The Charter Limitations on the Use of Force: Theory and Practice’, in Lowe, V., Roberts, A., Welsh, J. and Zaum, D. (eds.), The United Nations Security Council and War. The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford University Press, 2010), 86–98.Google Scholar

Green, J. A., ‘Passportisation, Peacekeepers and Proportionality: The Russian Claim of the Protection of Nationals Abroad in Self-Defence’, in Green, J. A. and Waters, C. P. M. (eds.), Conflict in the Caucasus: Implications for the International Legal Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 54–79.Google Scholar

Greenwood, C., ‘Self-Defence’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IX (10 vols. and index, Oxford University Press, 2012), 103–13.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, W., ‘Blockades and Interdictions’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 925–46.Google Scholar

Henckaerts, J-M., ‘Armed Forces’, in Wolfrum, R., The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. I (10 vols. and index, Oxford University Press, 2012), 637–40.Google Scholar

Hofmann, R., ‘Annexation’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. I (10 vols. and one annex, Oxford University Press, 2012), 409–18.Google Scholar

Jennings, R., ‘International Force and the International Court of Justice’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Current Regulation of the Use of Force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1986), 323–35.Google Scholar

Johnstone, I., ‘When the Security Council is Divided: Imprecise Authorizations, Implied Mandates, and the “Unreasonable Veto”’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 227–50.Google Scholar

Keller, H., ‘Friendly Relations Declaration (1970)’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. IV (10 vols. and an annex, Oxford University Press, 2012), 250–60.Google Scholar

Klein, P., ‘The Attribution of Acts to International Organizations’, in Crawford, J., Pellet, A. and Olleson, S. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press, 2010), 298–315.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘International Criminal Law’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. V (10 vols. and index, Oxford University Press, 2012), 717–32.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘The International Court of Justice and the Law of Armed Conflicts’, in Tams, C. J. and Sloan, J. (eds.), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford University Press, 2013), 263–98.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘The Nuremberg Judgment of Crimes against Peace and the Crime of Aggression’, in Universität zu Köln and Japanisches Kulturinstitut (eds.), Beiträge aus dem Symposium Japan and Germany – 150 Years of Cooperation. Dynamics of Traditional Research Societies in a Rapidly Changing World (Munich: Iudicium, 2013), 69–80.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Germany and the Crime of Aggression’, in Linton, S., Simpson, G. and Schabas, W. A. (eds.), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations. Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark (Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff, 2015), 31–51.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘The ICC’s First Encounter with the Crime of Genocide. The Case against Al Bashir’, in Stahn, C. (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (Oxford University Press, 2015), 669–704.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘The International Court of Justice and the “Principle of Non-Use of Force”’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 561–604.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., Barriga, S., Grover, L. and von Holtzendorff, L., ‘Negotiating the Understandings on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 81–97.Google Scholar

Krisch, N., ‘Article 42’, in Simma, B., Khan, D-E., Nolte, G. and Paulus, A. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations. A Commentary, 3rd edn, vol. I (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2012), 1330–50.Google Scholar

Kritsiotis, D., ‘A Study of the Scope and Operation of the Rights of Individual and Collective Self-Defence under International Law’, in White, N. D. and Henderson, C. (eds.), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law. Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus post Bellum (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013), 170–228.Google Scholar

Lamberti Zanardi, P. L., ‘Indirect Military Aggression’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1986), 111–19.Google Scholar

Lesaffer, R., ‘Too Much History: From War as Sanction to the Sanctioning of War’ in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 35–55.Google Scholar

Lillich, R. B., ‘Humanitarian Intervention: A Reply to Ian Brownlie and a Plea for Constructive Alternatives’, in Moore, J. N. (ed.), Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 229–52.Google Scholar

Lubell, N., ‘The Problem of Imminence in an Uncertain World’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 697–719.Google Scholar

Mathias, D. S., ‘The United States and the Security Council’, in Blokker, N. and Schrijver, N. (eds.), The Security Council and the Use of Force. Theory and Reality: A Need for Change? (Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 173–88.Google Scholar

McDonald, A. and Bruha, T., ‘Bombardment’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. I (10 vols. and one annex, Oxford University Press, 2012), 979–85.Google Scholar

Moir, L., ‘Action against Host States of Terrorist Groups’, in Weller, M. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 720–36.Google Scholar

Moore, J. N., ‘Legal Dimensions of the Decision to Intercede in Cambodia’, in Falk, R. A. (ed.), The Vietnam War and International Law, vol. III (4 vols., Princeton University Press, 1972), 58–95.Google Scholar

Nollkämper, A., ‘Attribution of Forcible Acts to States: Connections between the Law on the Use of Force and the Law of State Responsibility’, in Blokker, N. and Schrijver, N. (eds.), The Security Council and the Use of Force. Theory and Reality – A Need for Change? (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 133–71.Google Scholar

O’Connell, M. E., ‘The Prohibition of the Use of Force’, in White, N. D. and Henderson, C. (eds.), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law. Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus post Bellum (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2013), 89–119.Google Scholar

Randelzhofer, A. and Dörr, O., ‘Article 2(4)’, in Simma, B., Khan, D-E., Nolte, G. and Paulus, A. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations. A Commentary, 3rd edn, vol. I (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2012), 200–34.Google Scholar

Randelzhofer, A. and Nolte, G., ‘Article 51’, in Simma, B., Khan, D-E., Nolte, G. and Paulus, A. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations. A Commentary, 3rd edn, vol. II (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2012), 1397–428.Google Scholar

Rodin, D., ‘The Myth of National Self-Defence’, in Fabre, C. and Lazar, S. (eds.), The Morality of Defensive War (Oxford University Press, 2014), 69–89.Google Scholar

Rodley, N., ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 775–96.Google Scholar

Schindler, D., ‘L’emploi de la force par un etat belligérant sur le territoire d’un etat non belligerent’, in Autores, Varios, Estudios de Derecho Internacional. Homenaje al Professor Miaja de la Muela, vol. II (2 vols., Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, 1979), 847–64.Google Scholar

Schrijver, N., ‘The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 465–87.Google Scholar

Schwebel, S. M., ‘Wars of Liberation: as Fought in U.N. Organs’, in Moore, J. N. (ed.), Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 446–57.Google Scholar

Simma, B., ‘Genocide and the International Court of Justice’, in Safferling, C. and Conze, E. (eds.), The Genocide Convention Sixty Years after its Adoption (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser, 2010), 259–72.Google Scholar

Stevenson, J. R., ‘United States Military Action in Cambodia: Questions of International Law’, in Falk, R. A. (ed.), The Vietnam War and International Law, vol. III (4 vols., Princeton University Press, 1972), 23–32.Google Scholar

Tams, C. J., ‘Prospects for Humanitarian Uses of Force’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), Realizing Utopia. The Future of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), 359–74.Google Scholar

Trapp, K. N., ‘Can Non-State Actors Mount an Armed Attack?’, in Weller, M. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 679–96.Google Scholar

van den Herik, L. and Schrijvers, N. (eds.), ‘Leiden Policy Recommendations on Counter-Terrorism and International Law’, in Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented Legal Order. Meeting the Challenges (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 706–26.Google Scholar

Wählich, M., ‘Peace Settlements and the Prohibition of the Use of Force’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 962–87.Google Scholar

Walter, C., ‘Article 53’, in Simma, B., Khan, D-E., Nolte, G. and Paulus, A. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations. A Commentary, 3rd edn, vol. II (2 vols., Oxford University Press, 2012), 1478–524.Google Scholar

Weeramantry, J. R., ‘International Law as to the Use of Force’, in de Guttry, A., Post, H. H. G. and Venturini, G. (eds.), The 1998–2000 War between Eritrea and Ethiopia. An International Legal Perspective (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser, 2009), 227–42.Google Scholar

Weller, M., ‘Introduction: International Law and the Problem of War’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 3–34.Google Scholar

Westdickenberg, G. and Fixson, O., ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression im Römischen Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes’, in Frowein, J. Abr., Scharioth, K., Winkelmann, I. and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Verhandeln für den Frieden/Negotiating for Peace Liber Amicorum Tono Eitel (Berlin: Springer, 2003), 483–525.Google Scholar

Wilmshurst, E., ‘Definition of the Crime of Aggression: State Responsibility or Individual Criminal Responsibility’, in Politi, M. and Nesi, G. (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 93–96.Google Scholar

Wilmshurst, E., ‘Anticipatory Self-Defence against Terrorists’, in van den Herik, L. and Schrijver, N. (eds.), Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order. Meeting the Challenges (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 356–72.Google Scholar

Wippman, D., ‘Pro-Democratic Intervention’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), 797–815.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, A. and Freiburg, E., ‘Article 8 bis. Crime of Aggression’, in Triffterer, O. and Ambos, K. (eds.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 3rd edn (Munich: Beck, 2015), 568–606.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘The Crime of Aggression after Kampala’, German Yearbook of International Law, 53 (2010), 463–509.Google Scholar

Antonopoulos, C., ‘“The Legitimacy to Legitimise”: The Security Council’s Action in Libya under Resolution 1973 (2011)’, International Community Law Review, 14 (2012), 359–79.Google Scholar

Bakircioglu, O., ‘The Right to Self-Defence in National and International Law: The Role of the Imminence Requirement’, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 19 (2009), 1–48.Google Scholar

Bannelier, K., ‘Military Interventions Against ISIL in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the Legal Basis of Consent’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 29 (2016), forthcoming.Google Scholar

Bannelier, K. and Christakis, T., ‘Under the Security Council’s Watchful Eyes: Military Intervention by Invitation in the Malian Conflict’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 26 (2013), 855–74.Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Grover, L., ‘A Historic Breakthrough on the Crime of Aggression’, American Journal of International Law, 105 (2011), 517–33.Google Scholar

Bazyler, M. J., ‘Reexamining the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in Light of the Atrocities in Kampuchea and Ethiopia’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 23 (1987), 547–619.Google Scholar

Bethlehem, D., ‘Self-Defense against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors, American Journal of International Law, 106 (2012), 770–77.Google Scholar

Beyerlin, U., ‘Die israelische Befreiungsaktion von Entebbe in völkerrechtlicher Sicht’, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 37 (1977), 213–43.Google Scholar

Blum, Y. Z., ‘State Response to Acts of Terrorism’, German Yearbook of International Law, 19 (1976), 223–37.Google Scholar

Boon, K. E., ‘Are Control Tests Fit for the Future? The Slippage Problem in Attribution Doctrines’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 15 (2014), 330–77.Google Scholar

Bothe, M., ‘Die Erklärung der Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen über die Definition der Aggression’, Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, 18 (1975), 127–45.Google Scholar

Bowett, D., ‘Reprisals Involving the Recourse to Armed Force’, American Journal of International Law, 66 (1972), 1–36.Google Scholar

Broms, B., ‘The Definition of Aggression’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 154 (1977-I), 301–99.Google Scholar

Byers, M., ‘Preemptive Self-Defense: Hegemony, Equality and Strategies of Legal Change’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11 (2003), 171–90.Google Scholar

Byers, M., ‘Agreeing to Disagree: Security Council Resolution 1441 and Intentional Ambiguity’, Global Governance, 10 (2004), 165–86.Google Scholar

Castellino, J., ‘The Secession of Bangladesh in International Law’, Asian Yearbook of International Law, 7 (1997), 83–104.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, S. K., ‘Some Legal Problems of Support Role in International Law: Tanzania and Uganda’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 30 (1981), 755–68.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 15 (2002), 859–90.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Considered at the first Review Conference on the Court, Kampala, 31 May–11 June 2010’, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 2 (2010), 689–711.Google Scholar

Cryer, R. and Simester, A. P., ‘Iraq and the Use of Force: Do the Side-Effects Justify the Means?’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 7 (2006), 9–41.Google Scholar

Day, S. F., ‘Legal Considerations in Noncombatant Evacuation Operations’, Naval Law Review, 40 (1992), 45–64.Google Scholar

Deeks, A. S., ‘“Unwilling or Unable”: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 52 (2012), 483–550.Google Scholar

Deeks, A. S., ‘Consent to the Use of Force and International Law Supremacy’, Harvard International Law Journal, 54 (2013), 1–60.Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, L., ‘The Legal Validity of Military Intervention by Invitation of the Government’, British Yearbook of International Law, 56 (1985), 189–252.Google Scholar

Eichensehr, K. E., ‘Defending Nationals Abroad: Assessing the Lawfulness of Forcible Hostage Rescues’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 48 (2007–8), 451–84.Google Scholar

Eustathiades, C. T., ‘La définition de l’agression adoptée aux Nations Unies et la légitime défense’, Révue Hellénique de Droit International Law, 28 (1975), 5–97.Google Scholar

Falk, R. A., ‘The Beirut Raid and the International Law of Retaliation’, American Journal of International Law, 63 (1969), 415–43.Google Scholar

Farer, T. J., ‘The Regulation of Foreign Intervention in Civil Armed Conflict’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 142 (1974-II), 297–416.Google Scholar

Farer, T. J., ‘Panama: Beyond the Charter Paradigm’, American Journal of International Law, 84 (1990), 503–15.Google Scholar

Fernández de Gurmendi, S. A., ‘The Working Group on Aggression at the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, Fordham International Law Journal, 25 (2001–2), 589–605.Google Scholar

Fonteyne, J-P.L., ‘The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: Its Current Validity under the UN Charter’, California Western International Law Journal, 4 (1974), 203–70.Google Scholar

Franck, T. M., ‘What Happens Now? The United Nations after Iraq’, American Journal of International Law, 97 (2003), 607–20.Google Scholar

Franck, T. M. and Rodley, N. S., ‘After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force’, American Journal of International Law, 67 (1973), 275–305.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘The Temporal Dimension of Self-Defence: Anticipation, Pre-emption, Prevention and Immediacy’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 11 (2006), 361–69.Google Scholar

Glennon, M. J., ‘The Blank-Prose Crime of Aggression’, Yale Journal of International Law, 35 (2009), 71–114.Google Scholar

Gordon, D. J., ‘Use of Force for the Protection of Nationals Abroad: The Entebbe Incident’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 9 (1977).Google Scholar

Gray, C., ‘The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission Oversteps its Boundaries: A Partial Award?’ European Journal of International Law, 17 (2006), 699–721.Google Scholar

Green, J., ‘The Ratione Temporis Elements of Self-Defence’, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 2 (2015), 97–118.Google Scholar

Greig, D. W., ‘Self-Defence and the Security Council: What does Article 51 Require?’, International & Comparative Law Review, 40 (1991), 366–402.Google Scholar

Grimal, F. and Melling, G., ‘The Protection of Nationals Abroad: Lawfulness or Toleration? A Commentary’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 16 (2011), 541–54.Google Scholar

Guiden, T., ‘Defending America’s Cambodian Incursion’, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11 (1994), 215–70.Google Scholar

Guiora, A. N., ‘Self-Defense – From the Wild West to 9/11: Who, What, When’, Cornell International Law Journal, 41 (2008), 631–74.Google Scholar

Hakimi, M., ‘Defensive Force against Non-State Actors: The State of Play’, International Law Studies, 91 (2015), 1–31.Google Scholar

Halverstam, M., ‘The Right of Self-Defense Once the Security Council Takes Action’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 17 (1996), 229–48.Google Scholar

Hassan, F., ‘Realpolitik in International Law: After Tanzanian–Ugandan Conflict “Humanitarian Intervention Reexamined”’, Willamette Law Review, 17 (1981), 859–912.Google Scholar

Heinsch, R., ‘The Crime of Aggression after Kampala: Success or Burden for the Future?’, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 2 (2010), 713–43.Google Scholar

Heller, K. J., ‘The Uncertain Legal Status of the Aggression Understandings’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 229–48.Google Scholar

Henderson, C., ‘Contested States and the Rights and Obligations of the Jus Ad Bellum’, Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law, 21 (2013), 367–407.Google Scholar

Henderson, C., ‘The Provision of Arms and “Non-Lethal” Assistance to Governmental and Opposition Forces’, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 36 (2013), 642–81.Google Scholar

Henderson, C., ‘The UK Government’s Legal Opinion on Forcible Measures in Response to the Use of Chemical Weapons by the Syrian Government’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64 (2015), 179–96.Google Scholar

Hilpold, P., ‘Humanitarian Intervention: Is There a Need for a Legal Reappraisal?’, European Journal of International Law, 12 (2001), 437–67.Google Scholar

Hilpold, P., ‘Intervening in the Name of Humanity: R2P and the Power of Ideas’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 17 (2012), 49–79.Google Scholar

Jennings, R. Y., ‘The Caroline and McLeod Cases’, American Journal of International Law, 32 (1938), 82–99.Google Scholar

Kioko, K., ‘The Right of Intervention under the African Union’s Constitutive Act: From Non-Interference to Non-Intervention’, International Review of the Red Cross, 85 (2003), 807–25.Google Scholar

Koh, H. H. and Buchwald, T. F., ‘The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective’, American Journal of International Law, 109 (2015), 257–95.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Strafrecht und Angriffskrieg im Licht des “Falles Irak”’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 115 (2003), 294–351.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘The German Chief Federal Prosecutor’s Decision Not to Investigate the Alleged Crime of Preparing Aggression against Iraq’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2 (2004), 245–64.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Remarks’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 105 (2011), 160–62.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Review of “Armed Attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice. By Tom Ruys’, British Yearbook of International Law, 83 (2012), 160–70.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., ‘Major Post-Westphalian Shifts and Some Important Neo-Westphalian Hesitations in the State Practice on the International Law on the Use of Force’, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 1 (2014), 11–54.Google Scholar

Kreß, C. and Tams, C. J., ‘Wider die normative Kraft des Faktischen. Die Krim-Krise aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht’, Internationale Politik, 69 (2014), 16–19.Google Scholar

Kreß, C. and von Holtzendorff, L., ‘The Kampala Compromise on the Crime of Aggression’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8 (2010), 1179–217.Google Scholar

Kretzmer, D., ‘The Inherent Right of Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum’, European Journal of International Law, 24 (2013), 235–82.Google Scholar

Laursen, A., ‘The Use of Force and (the State of) Necessity’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 37 (2004), 487–526.Google Scholar

Lehmann, J. M., ‘All Necessary Means to Protect Civilians: What the Intervention in Libya says about the Relationship between the Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 17 (2012), 117–46.Google Scholar

Lillich, R. B., ‘Forcible Self-Help to Protect Human Rights’, Iowa Law Review, 53 (1967), 325–51.Google Scholar

Lobel, J., ‘The Use of Force to Respond to Terrorist Attacks: the Bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan’, Yale Journal of International Law, 24 (1999), 537–57.Google Scholar

Mancini, M., ‘A Brand New Definition for the Crime of Aggression: The Kampala Outcome’, Nordic Journal of International Law, 81 (2012), 227–48.Google Scholar

Mrazek, J., ‘Prohibition on the Use of Force: Self-Defence and Self-Help in International Law’, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 27 (1989), 81–111.Google Scholar

Müllerson, R., ‘Jus Ad Bellum: Plus ca Change (le Monde) plus c’est la même Chose (le Droit)’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 7 (2002), 149–89.Google Scholar

Nanda, V. P., ‘Tragedies in Northern Iraq, Liberia, Yugoslavia, and Haiti: Revisiting the Validity of Humanitarian Intervention under International Law – Part I’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 20 (1992), 305–34.Google Scholar

Nolte, G., ‘Restoring Peace by Regional Action: International Legal Aspects of the Liberian Conflict’, Zeitschrift für ausländisches und öffentliches Recht, 53 (1993), 603–37.Google Scholar

Nolte, G., ‘The Resolution of the Institut de Droit International on Military Assistance on Request’, Révue Belge de Droit International, (2012), 233–54.Google Scholar

Nolte, G., ‘Multipurpose Self-Defence, Proportionality Disoriented: A Response to David Kretzmer’, European Journal of International Law, 24 (2013), 283–90.Google Scholar

Nowrot, K. and Schabacker, E. W., ‘The Use of Force to Restore Democracy: International Legal Implications of the ECOWAS Intervention in Sierra Leone’, American University International Law Review, 14 (1998), 321–412.Google Scholar

O’Connell, M. E. and Niyazmatov, M., ‘What is Aggression? Comparing the Jus ad Bellum and the ICC Statute’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 189–207.Google Scholar

Ofodile, A. C., ‘The Legality of ECOWAS Intervention in Liberia’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 32 (1994), 380–418.Google Scholar

Paulus, A., ‘The War Against Iraq and the Future of International Law: Hegemony or Pluralism?’ Michigan Journal of International Law, 25 (2004), 691–733.Google Scholar

Paust, J. J., ‘Entebbe and Self-Help: the Israeli Response to Terrorism’, Fletcher Forum, 2 (1978), 86–91.Google Scholar

Payandeh, M., ‘The United Nations, Military Intervention, and Regime Change in Libya’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 52 (2012), 355–403.Google Scholar

Peters, A., ‘Extraterritorial Naturalizations: Between the Human Right to Nationality, State Sovereignty and Fair Principles of Jurisdiction’, German Yearbook of International Law, 53 (2010), 623–725.Google Scholar

Quigley, J., ‘The Legality of the United States Invasion of Panama’, Yale Journal of International Law, 15 (1990), 276–315.Google Scholar

Raby, J., ‘The State of Necessity and the Use of Force to Protect Nationals’, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 26 (1988), 253–72.Google Scholar

Reisman, W. M., ‘Coercion and Self-Determination: Construing Charter Article 2(4)’, American Journal of International Law, 78 (1984), 642–45.Google Scholar

Reisman, W. M., ‘Sovereignty and Human Rights in Contemporary International Law’, American Journal of International Law, 84 (1990), 866–76.Google Scholar

Reisman, W. M. and Armstrong, A., ‘The Past and Future of the Claim of Preemptive Self-Defense’, American Journal of International Law, 100 (2006), 525–50.Google Scholar

Roberts, A., ‘The So-Called Right of Humanitarian Intervention’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3 (2000), 3–51.Google Scholar

Roberts, A., ‘Law and the Use of Force After Iraq’, Survival, 45 (2003), 31–56.Google Scholar

Rockefeller, M. L., ‘The “Imminent Threat” Requirement for the Use of Preemptive Military Force: Is it Time for a Non-Temporal Standard?’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 33 (2004), 131–49.Google Scholar

Röling, B. V. A., ‘On Aggression, on International Criminal Law, on International Criminal Jurisdiction’, Nederlands Tidschrift Voor Internationaal Recht, 2 (1955), 167–96.Google Scholar

Ronzitti, N., ‘Expanding Law of Self-Defence’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 11 (2006), 343–59.Google Scholar

Ruys, T., ‘Crossing the Thin Blue Line: An Inquiry into Israel’s Recourse to Self-Defense against Hezbollah’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 43 (2007), 265–94.Google Scholar

Ruys, T., ‘The “Protection of Nationals” Doctrine Revisited’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 13 (2008), 233–71.Google Scholar

Ruys, T., ‘Of Arms, Funding and “Non-lethal Assistance”: Issues Surrounding Third State Intervention in the Syrian Civil War’, Chinese Journal of International Law, 13 (2014), 13–53.Google Scholar

Ruys, T., ‘The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?’, American Journal of International Law, 108 (2014), 159–210.Google Scholar

Schachter, O., ‘The Right of States to Use Armed Force’, Michigan Law Review, 82 (1984), 1620–46.Google Scholar

Schachter, O., ‘The Lawful Use of Force by a State against Terrorists in Another Country’, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 19 (1989), 209–31.Google Scholar

Scheffer, D., ‘The Complex Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23 (2010), 897–904.Google Scholar

Schindler, D., ‘Die Grenzen des völkerrechtlichen Gewaltverbots’, Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht, 26 (1985), 11–41.Google Scholar

Schmalenbach, K., ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof: Ein politischer Erfolg mit rechtlichen Untiefen’, Juristen Zeitung, 65 (2010), 745–52.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Counter-Terrorism and the Use of Force in International Law’, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 32 (2002), 53–116.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Preemptive Strategies in International Law’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 24 (2003), 515–48.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘“Change Direction” 2006: Israeli Operations in Lebanon and the International Law of Self-Defense’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 29 (2007–8), 127–64.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Responding to Transnational Terrorism under the Jus Ad Bellum: A Normative Framework’, Naval Law Review, 56 (2008), 1–42.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘The Syrian Intervention: Assessing the Possible International Law Justifications’, International Law Studies, 89 (2013), 744–56.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Legitimacy versus Legality Redux: Arming the Syrian Rebels’, Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 7 (2014), 139–59.Google Scholar

Schweisfurth, T., ‘Operations to Rescue Nationals in Third States Involving the Use of Force in Relation to Human Rights’, German Yearbook of International Law, 23 (1980), 159–80.Google Scholar

Sciso, E., ‘L’Aggressione Indiretta nella Definizione dell’Assemblea Generale delle Nazione Unite’, Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, 66 (1983), 253–90.Google Scholar

Shah, N. A., ‘Self-defence, Anticipatory Self-defence and Pre-emption: International Law’s Response to Terrorism’, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 12 (2007), 95–126.Google Scholar

Shah, N. A., ‘The Use of Force under Islamic Law’, European Journal of International Law, 24 (2013), 343–65.Google Scholar

Sofaer, A. D., ‘On the Necessity of Pre-emption’, European Journal of International Law, 14 (2003), 209–26.Google Scholar

Solera, O., ‘The Definition of the Crime of Aggression: Lessons Not Learned’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 42 (2010), 801–21.Google Scholar

Stahn, C., ‘Terrorist Acts as “Armed Attack”: The Right of Self-Defense, Article 51 (1/2) of the UN Charter, and International Terrorism’, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 27 (2003), 35–54.Google Scholar

Stone, J., ‘Hopes and Loopholes in the 1974 Definition of Aggression’, American Journal of International Law, 71 (1977), 224–46.Google Scholar

Taft, W. H. IV, ‘Self-Defence and the Oil Platforms Decision’, Yale Journal of International Law, 29 (2004), 295–306.Google Scholar

Talmon, S., ‘Recognition of Opposition Groups as the Legitimate Representative of a People’, Chinese Journal of International Law, 12 (2013), 219–53.Google Scholar

Tams, C., ‘The Use of Force against Terrorists’, European Journal of International Law, 20 (2009), 359–97.Google Scholar

Tladi, D., ‘The Nonconsenting State: The Problem with Bethlehem’s Principle 12’, American Journal of International Law, 107 (2013), 570–76.Google Scholar

Trahan, J., ‘Defining “Aggression”: Why the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court Has Faced Such a Conundrum’, Loyola Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, 24 (2002), 439–774.Google Scholar

Trahan, J., ‘The Rome Statute’s Amendment on the Crime of Aggression: Negotiations at the Kampala Review Conference’, International Criminal Law Review, 11 (2011), 49–104.Google Scholar

Trahan, J., ‘Defining the “Grey Area” where Humanitarian Intervention may not be Fully Legal, but is not the Crime of Aggression’, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 2 (2015), 42–80.Google Scholar

Van Schaack, B., ‘Negotiating at the Interface of Power & Law: The Crime of Aggression’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49 (2011), 505–601.Google Scholar

Waldock, C. H. M., ‘The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 81 (1952-II), 451–517.Google Scholar

Walzer, W., ‘The Crime of Aggressive War’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 6 (2007) 635–43.Google Scholar

Wenaweser, C., ‘Reaching the Kampala Compromise on Aggression: The Chair’s Perspective’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23 (2010), 883–87.Google Scholar

Weston, B. H., ‘Security Council Resolution 678 and Persian Gulf Decision-Making: Precarious Legitimacy’, American Journal of International Law, 85 (1991), 516–35.Google Scholar

Wills, A. G., ‘The Crime of Aggression and the Resort to Force against Entities in Statu Nascendi’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012) 83–110.Google Scholar

Wilmshurst, E., ‘Chatham House Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-Defence’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 55 (2006), 963–72.Google Scholar

Wood, M., ‘International Law and the Use of Force: What Happens in Practice?’ Indian Yearbook of International Law (2013), 345–67.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, F. and Elias, O., ‘Humanitarian Considerations in the Work of the United Nations Compensation Commission’, International Review of the Red Cross, 85 (2003), 555–81.Google Scholar

Yost, D. S., ‘NATO and the Anticipatory Use of Force’, International Affairs, 83 (2007), 39–68.Google Scholar

Zedalis, R., ‘Protection of Nationals Abroad: Is Consent the Basis for Legal Obligation?’, Texas Journal of International Law 25 (1990), 209–70.Google Scholar

Zourek, Z., ‘Enfin une définition de l’agression’, Annuaire Français de Droit International, 20 (1974), 9–30.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ Reports (2007), 43.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Reports (2005), 168.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd (New Application 1962) (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, ICJ Reports (1970), 3.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Provisional Measures of 10 May 1999, CR 99/15.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Oral Proceedings, Public Sitting, 10 May 1999.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), ICJ Reports (2004), 279.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (1986), 14.Google Scholar

Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (2003), 161.Google Scholar

Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran), ICJ Reports (1980), 3.Google Scholar

House of Lords, R v. Jones et al. [2006] UKHL 16.Google Scholar

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark and the Netherlands), ICJ Reports (1969), 3.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, ICTY-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment, ICTY-94-1-A, 14 July 1999.Google Scholar

‘A Just and Lasting Peace’, Nobel Lecture by Barack H. Obama, 10 December 2009.Google Scholar

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports (2010), 403.Google Scholar

Ago, R., ‘Addendum to the 8th Report on State Responsibility’, Yb ILC (1980), vol. II(1), 13–70.Google Scholar

Council of Europe, ‘Venice Commission’, ‘Opinion on the Federal Law on the Amendments to the Federal Law on Defence of the Russian Federation’, Opinion No. 572/2010, 21 December 2010, CDL-AD(2010)052.Google Scholar

Independent International Fact Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, Report, vol. II (3 vols., September 2009).Google Scholar

Institut de Droit International, ‘Le Principe de Non-intervention dans le Guerres Civiles. 15 August 1975’, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 56 (1975), 544–49.Google Scholar

Institut de Droit International, ‘Problèmes Actuels du Recours à la Force en Droit International. La Légitime Défense’, 10ième Commission sous.groupe A (27 October 2007).Google Scholar

Institut de Droit International, ‘Military Assistance on Request’, 10th Commission – Sub-group C (8 September 2011).Google Scholar

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001).Google Scholar

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports (2004), 136.Google Scholar

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports (1996), 226.Google Scholar

United Nations, Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, vol. VI (22 vols., New York: United Nations Publications, 1945).Google Scholar

United Nations, Historical Review of Developments relating to Aggression (New York: United Nations Publications, 2003).Google Scholar

US Government, ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’, The White House, Washington, DC, 17 September 2002.Google Scholar

Badar, M. E., The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law: The Case for a Unified Approach (Oxford: Hart, 2013).Google Scholar

Boister, N. and Cryer, R., The Tokyo International Tribunal: A Reappraisal (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Fowler, H. W., A Dictionary of Modern English Language (Oxford University Press, 1950).Google Scholar

Heller, K. J., The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

McDougall, C., The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Against the Odds: The Results of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S., Danspeckgruber, W. and Wenaweser, C. (eds.), The Princeton Process on the Crime of Aggression: Materials of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, 2003–2009 (Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University, 2009) 1–20.Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Negotiating the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 3–57.Google Scholar

Gosnell, C., ‘Damned if You Don’t: Liability for Omissions in International Criminal Law’, in Schabas, W. A., McDermott, Y. and Hayes, N. (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 101–31.Google Scholar

Shukri, M. A., ‘Individual Responsibility for the Crime of Aggression’, in Bellelli, R. (ed.), International Criminal Justice: Law and Practice from the Rome Statute to its Review (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 519–45.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Nuremberg and the Crime against Peace’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 6 (2007), 527–55.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Drafting a General Part to a Penal Code: Some Thoughts Inspired by the Negotiations on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and by the Court’s First Substantive Law Discussion in the Lubanga Dyilo Confirmation Proceedings’, Criminal Law Forum, 19 (2008), 519–52.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, 14 March 2012.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Ngudjolo Chui, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04/12, 18 December 2012.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, on the Appeals of the Prosecutor and Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Against the ‘Decision on Sentence Pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute’, No. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 4 A 6, Appeals Chamber, 1 December 2014.Google Scholar

Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, No. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 5, Appeals Chamber, 1 December 2014.Google Scholar

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951), 78 UNTS 277.Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind’, Yb ILC (1988), vol. II(2), 55.Google Scholar

ILC, ‘Summary Records of the Meetings of the Forty-Eighth Session, 6 May–26 July 1996’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1996, Yb ILC (1996), vol. I, 1.Google Scholar

‘Report by Robert H. Jackson’, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, London 1945, available at: www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/jackson-rpt-military-trials.pdf.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol. I: Foundations and General Part (3 vols., Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Law, 6th edn (New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis, 2012).Google Scholar

Lee, R. S. et al. (eds.), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Ardsley, NY: Transnational, 2001).Google Scholar

McDougall, C., The Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Anggadi, F., French, G. and Potter, J., ‘Negotiating the Elements of the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 58–97.Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Negotiating the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 3–57.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Complementarity and the Crime of Aggression’, in Stahn, C. and El Ziedy, M. M. (eds.), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity (Cambridge University Press, 2011), 721–44.Google Scholar

Fernandez de Gurmendi, S., ‘An Insider’s View’, in Politi, M. and Nesi, G. (eds.), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 175–88.Google Scholar

Gordon, G. S., ‘Of War Councils and Warmongering: Considering the Viability of Incitement to Aggression’, in Linton, S., Schabas, W. A. and Simpson, G. (eds.), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations: Essays in Honour of Roger S. Clark (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 409Google Scholar

Saland, P., ‘International Criminal Law Principles’, in Lee, R. S. (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute, Issues, Negotiations, Results (The Hague: Kluwer Law, 1999), 189–216.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘The Mental Element in International Criminal Law: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Elements of Offences’, Criminal Law Forum, 12 (2001), 291–334.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 15 (2002), 859–90.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Nuremberg and the Crime Against Peace’, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 6 (2007), 527–50.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Drafting a General Part to a Penal Code: Some Thoughts Inspired by the Negotiations on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and by the Court’s First Substantive law Discussion in the Lubanga Dyilo Confirmation Proceedings’, Criminal Law Forum, 19 (2008), 519–52.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Negotiating Provisions Defining the Crime of Aggression, its Elements and the Conditions for ICC Exercise Over It’, European Journal of International Law, 20 (2010), 1103–115.Google Scholar

Fernandez de Gurmendi, S., ‘The Working Group on Aggression at the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, Fordham International Law Journal, 25 (2002), 589–605.Google Scholar

Mortenson, J. D., ‘The Travaux of Travaux: Is the Vienna Convention Hostile to Drafting History?’, American Journal of International Law, 107 (2013), 780–822.Google Scholar

Potter, J., ‘The Threshold in the Proposed Definition of the Crime of Aggression’, New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, 6 (2008), 155–68.Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, Proposed Official Draft (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 1962).Google Scholar

General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, UN Doc. A/RES/2200(XXI).Google Scholar

General Assembly, Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its Seventh Session, 9 March 2001, UN Doc. PCNICC/2001/L.1/Rev.1, 22.Google Scholar

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), UN Doc. A/RES/2200(XXI).Google Scholar

‘Preliminary List of Possible Issues Relating to the Crime of Aggression’, 29 March 2000, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGCA/RT.1.Google Scholar

‘Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court’, Addendum, Part II, Finalized Draft Text of the Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000).Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol. II (3 vols., Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Aust, A., Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 3rd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Kreß, C., The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Corten, O. and Klein, P. (eds.), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

International Criminal Court, Selected Basic Documents Related to the International Criminal Court (The Hague: International Criminal Court, 2011).Google Scholar

McDougall, C., The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

McNair, A. D., The Law of Treaties (Oxford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

Reuter, P., Introduction to the Law of Treaties, translated by Mico, J. and Haggenmacher, P., 2nd edn (London: Kegan Paul, 1995).Google Scholar

Sayapin, S., The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law: Historical Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser, 2014).Google Scholar

Schabas, W. A., The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Triffterer, O., Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Munich: Beck, 2008).Google Scholar

United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, Historical Review of Developments relating to Aggression (New York: United Nations, 2003).Google Scholar

Villiger, M. E., Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009).Google Scholar

Anggadi, F., French, G. and Potter, J., ‘Negotiating the Elements of the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 58–80.Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Exercise of Jurisdiction and Entry into Force of the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Dive, G., Goes, B. and Vandermeersch, D. (eds.), From Rome to Kampala: The First Two Amendments to the Rome Statute (Brussels: Éditions Bruylant, 2012), 31–53.Google Scholar

Barriga, S., ‘Negotiating the Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 3–57.Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Wenaweser, C., ‘Forks in the Road: Personal Reflections on Negotiating the Kampala Amendments on the Crime of Aggression’, in Linton, S., Simpson, G. and Schabas, W. (eds.), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations: Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 283–97.Google Scholar

Brunnée, J., ‘Treaty Amendments’, in Hollis, D. B. (ed.), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2012), 347–66.Google Scholar

Condorelli, L. and Villalpando, S., ‘Referral and Deferral by the Security Council’, in Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., Jones, J. R. W. D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. I (Oxford University Press, 2002), 627–55.Google Scholar

Gardiner, R., ‘The Vienna Convention Rules on Treaty Interpretation’, in Hollis, D. B. (ed.), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2012), 475–506.Google Scholar

Kreß, C., Barriga, S., Grover, L. and von Holtzendorff, L., ‘Negotiating the Understandings on the Crime of Aggression’, in Barriga, S. and Kreß, C. (eds.), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 81–97.Google Scholar

Murphy, S. D., ‘The Crime of Aggression at the ICC’, in Weller, M. (ed.), Oxford Handbook on the Use of Force (Oxford University Press, 2013), 533–60.Google Scholar

Wagner, M., ‘The ICC and its Jurisdiction: Myths, Misperceptions and Realities’, in von Bogdandy, A. and Wolfrum, R. (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 409–502.Google Scholar

Akande, D., ‘The International Court of Justice and the Security Council: Is there Room for Judicial Control of Decisions of the Political Organs of the United Nations?’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46 (1997), 309–43.Google Scholar

Alvarez, J. E., ‘Judging the Security Council’, American Journal of International Law, 90 (1996), 1–39.Google Scholar

Barriga, S. and Grover, L., ‘A Historic Breakthrough on the Crime of Aggression’, American Journal of International Law, 105 (2011), 517–33.Google Scholar

Blokker, N. and Kreß, C., ‘A Consensus Agreement on the Crime of Aggression: Impressions from Kampala’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23 (2010), 889–95.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Ambiguities in Articles 5(2), 121 and 123 of the Rome Statute’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 41 (2009), 413–27.Google Scholar

Clark, R. S., ‘Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Considered at the First Review Conference on the Court, Kampala, 31 May–11 June 2010’, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 2 (2010), 689–711.Google Scholar

Heinsch, R., ‘The Crime of Aggression after Kampala: Success or Burden for the Future?’, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 2 (2010), 713–43.Google Scholar

Koh, H. H. and Buchwald, T. F., ‘The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective’, American Journal of International Law, 109 (2015), 257–95.Google Scholar

Kreß, C. and von Holtzendorff, L., ‘The Kampala Compromise on the Crime of Aggression’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 8 (2010), 1179–217.Google Scholar

Manson, R., ‘Identifying the Rough Edges of the Kampala Compromise’, Criminal Law Forum, 21 (2010), 417–43.Google Scholar

Mégret, F., ‘Epilogue to an Endless Debate: The International Criminal Court’s Third Party Jurisdiction and the Looming Revolution of International Law’, European Journal of International Law, 12 (2001), 247–68.Google Scholar

Milanovic, M., ‘Aggression and Legality: Custom in Kampala’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 165–87.Google Scholar

Politi, M., ‘The ICC and the Crime of Aggression: A Dream that Came Through and the Reality Ahead’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 10 (2012), 267–88.Google Scholar

Reisinger Coracini, A., ‘The International Criminal Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression – at Last … in Reach … over Some’, Goettingen Journal of International Law, 2 (2010), 745–89.Google Scholar

Roberts, K., ‘Second-Guessing the Security Council: The International Court of Justice and its Powers of Judicial Review’, Pace International Law Review, 7 (1995), 281–327.Google Scholar

Scheffer, D., ‘The Complex Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23 (2010), 897–904.Google Scholar

Schmalenbach, K., ‘Das Verbrechen der Aggression vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof: Ein politischer Erfolg mit rechtlichen Untiefen’, Juristen Zeitung, 65 (2010), 745–52.Google Scholar

Trahan, J., ‘The Rome Statute’s Amendment on the Crime of Aggression: Negotiations at the Kampala Review Conference’, International Criminal Law Review, 11 (2011), 49–104.Google Scholar

Van Schaack, B., ‘Negotiating at the Interface of Power and Law: The Crime of Aggression’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49 (2011), 505–601.Google Scholar

Watson, G. R., ‘Constitutionalism, Judicial Review, and the World Court’, Harvard International Law Journal, 34 (1993), 1–45.Google Scholar

Weisbord, N., ‘Bargaining Practices: Negotiating the Kampala Compromise for the International Criminal Court’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76 (2014), 85–117.Google Scholar

Wenaweser, C., ‘Reaching the Kampala Compromise on Aggression: The Chair’s Perspective’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 23 (2010), 883–87.Google Scholar