Talk:Crime against peace
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crime against peace article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.|
Yes, I have a question that could perhaps be addressed in this article. With regards to the responsibility for committing war crimes. In the example in the last paragraph: "Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein for starting "aggressive" wars". Would those tried be only of the executive branches of governments or perhaps too of the legislative or law and authorizing branches? In the case of the US, its congress. Could they too be considered war criminals committing the crime against peace? 126.96.36.199Shootie2HUNT 29/10/06
The President sought and recieved Congressional authority to invade Iraq, so Congress authorized this war and Congress has the primary responsibility.
The war was undertaken under Article 51 authority. The requirement of notification was met, and all Security Council directions since have been complied with, so there are no violations of international law to discuss.
Blatant POV pushing
Why is this being used to push anti-Bush propaganda? Jtrainor 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the lone "See also" link at the bottom? Why that one, and why is that the only one?
Article says: "No legal authority exists for the definition of the terms "territorial integrity", "political independence" and "sovereignty". However, their face value would seem to disclose the following:" (definitions follow). This would seem to me to be a textbook example of original research. Comments? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This section has largely been created by a new user who appears to be one of the authors of the cited source (Gauger et al.). It also discusses the work of coauthor Higgins. An independent secondary source is needed to establish that these sources are worthy of note. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that one looks strange to me. Ecocide is something very much different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. "Crime against peace" is by definition a conspiracy to commit war of aggression. Ecocide is destruction of environment, not necessarily during the war. Therefore, according to quoted sources, ecocide was never officially considered a crime against peace. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Development in Crime against peace
it is considerable that with the enlargement of the concept of peace,after the end of the cold war ,obviously the domain of this crime(Crime against peace )increase too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)