CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ (Politis report) was elaborated by the Committee on Security Questions containing a draft act relating to the definition of aggression. The principal opponents of the Soviet Union’s proposal and of any precise definition of aggression were, over the years, the United Kingdom and the United States. 9 No definition of aggression was adopted by the Disarmament Conference. The Soviet Union and several other states concluded on 3 and 4 July 1933 in London two conventions for the definition of aggression. Czechoslovakia was signatory of one of these conventions. Ratifications for both treaties were deposited in Moscow. A Definition of Aggression was contained in the Convention for the Definition of Aggression between Afghanistan, Estonia, Latvia, Persia, Poland, Romania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics andTurkey, signed at London, on 3 July 1933. 10 In the convention signed on 4 July by Czechoslovakia, parties confirmed “the fact that the Briand-Kellogg Pact, of which they are signatories, bans any aggression” and declared “it necessary, in the interest of the general security, to define aggression specifically as possible…” They considered bringing this into force, as between their countries precise rules defining aggression, until the time when these rules shall become universal. Under Art. 2 the “aggressor in an international conflict” shall be considered the state which is ,,the first to have taken one of the following actions”: 1) declaration of war upon another State; 2) invasion of another state, with or without a declaration of war; 3) attack with land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State; 4) imposition of a naval blockade of the shores or harbours of another state; 5) providing support to armed bands formed in its territory which attacked the territory of another State or which, in spite of the demands of attacked state, refuses to do all in its power to deprive these bands of any support in its territory or protection. Art. 3 stipulated: “No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as a pretext or justification for aggression”. The Convention accepted in Art. 1 the definition explained in the Politics Report of May 1933. In the Annex to Art. 3 the state parties declared that no act of aggression may be justified: a) by the internal situation in a state, for instance by its political, economic, or social structure; alleged weakness of its administration; unrests originating from strikes, revolutions or civil war; by international conduct of a state, for example by infringement of material or moral rights or interest of a foreign state or its subjects; severance of diplomatic relations or breaking off economic relations, or financial boycott; disputes related to economic, financial or other obligations towards a foreign state; border incidents which do not fall within the cases of aggression from Art. 2. Both conventions in fact contained identical definitions. 11 In the period between World War I and World War II no precise definition of aggression was reached. Some definitions appeared in treaties with a small number of signatories. The Soviet Union, who supported the idea of 9 See Schwebel S.M., supra note 1, p. 530. 10 L.N.T.S., No. 3391; see also Stone, J., supra note 1, p. 213; see also http://www.derechos.org/peace/ dia/doc/dia20.html. 11 148 L.N.T.S., No. 3414; see also Stone, J., supra note 1, p. 213, see also Recueil des Traites SDN, 1934, V.CXLVIII, No. 3414, pp. 212-219; see also: http://www-rastlp-rs/istorija/diplomatija/kod_e.html.

72