5cjxburmr

121 and 123 of the Rome Statute defining the crime and setting out the conditions under whichthe ICC shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. 280 A 2010 Review Conference inKampala, Uganda adopted amendments concerning the crime of aggression, but the amendmentsare subject to ratification or acceptance, 281 and certain conditions must be fulfilled before theICC will be able to exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression. 282 The UnitedStates has expressed the view that the definitions of “act of aggression” and “crime ofaggression” in the Kampala amendments do not reflect customary international law. 283 TheUnited States has expressed a broad range of other concerns about the Kampala amendments,including concerns regarding the possibility of the ICC exercising jurisdiction over the crime ofaggression without a prior determination by the Security Council that a State has committed anact of aggression. 28418.20.4 Hybrid or Mixed Tribunals. In some cases, an international tribunal may mixelements of domestic and international law. For example, war crimes trials by national tribunalswere conducted after World War II under the military government formed by the Allies togovern occupied Germany. 285280 ROME STATUTE art. 5(2) (“The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision isadopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which theCourt shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevantprovisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”).281 See Resolution RC/Res.6, Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala,Uganda, Jun. 11, 2010 (“1. Decides to adopt, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2, of the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court (hereinafter: ‘the Statute’) the amendments to the Statute contained in annex I of thepresent resolution, which are subject to ratification or acceptance and shall enter into force in accordance with article121, paragraph 5; and notes that any State Party may lodge a declaration referred to in article 15 bis prior toratification or acceptance;”).282 See, e.g., Article 15 bis, Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the Crime ofAggression, Annex I to Resolution RC/Res.6, Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt, Kampala, Uganda, Jun. 11, 2010 (“2. The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes ofaggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties. 3.The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to adecision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of anamendment to the Statute.”).283 Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Statement at the Review Conference of theInternational Criminal Court, Jun. 4, 2010 (“[T]he definition of aggression does not truly reflect customaryinternational law, i.e., widespread and consistent state practice followed out of a sense of legal obligation.”).284 Sarah Sewall, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, Remarks at the AnnualMeeting of the American Society of International Law: The ICC Crime of Aggression and the ChangingInternational Security Landscape, Apr. 9, 2015 (“Many of our concerns – and many of the means of mitigating them– are linked to the uncertainty that still surrounds crucial aspects of the amendments and how they may beinterpreted and applied. The definition of the crime itself, as adopted in Kampala, was ostensibly based on an earlierUN resolution that gave guidance to the Security Council on identifying acts of aggression. But the definition thatthe parties adopted stripped away the critical requirement that the assessment of a use of force ‘must be consideredin light of all the circumstances of each particular case,’ and it shifted the role of applying this guidance and makingthese judgments – which inevitably involve political judgments – from the Security Council to a judicial body meantto remain above politics.”).285 See generally DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET 27-161-2, II International Law, 224-33 (Oct. 23, 1962).1112