At the same time that Justice Robert H. Jackson helped to construct the Nuremberg tribunal at the end of World War II, he also sought to end aggressive war altogether. As he noted in his famous opening statement at the tribunal, the prosecution aimed “to utilize international law tomeet the greatest menace of our times—aggressive war.”1 Nevertheless, although the Nuremberg court tried twenty-two Nazi leaders—and subsequent war crimes trials in Germany and Tokyo prosecuted other military figures—the crime of aggression Jackson had championed became something of an afterthought. Subsequent to these proceedings, scholars and commentators largely viewed the aggression charges as problematic, and many have described the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity as the tribunal’s more enduring legacy.2 Indeed, even during the heady post-Cold War period that produced the ad hoc international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the remarkable agreement to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), the crime of aggression was excluded from the purview of these bodies. Yet a small band of international lawyers, of whom Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz was one, never let go of the ideal of defining the international crime of aggression and including it within the jurisdiction of an international criminal court (pp. 58–59). That ideal became a reality in 2010 in Kampala, Uganda, when the Assembly of States Parties to the International Criminal Court agreed to a definition of the crime and a path forward for including it within the ICC’s jurisdiction.3

中文翻译：

---

侵略罪：在无人机、网络攻击、叛乱分子和独裁者时代寻求正义。通过诺亚韦斯博德。新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社，2019 年。第 9 页，257。索引。

在罗伯特·H·杰克逊大法官在二战结束时帮助建立纽伦堡法庭的同时，他还试图彻底结束侵略战争。正如他在法庭上著名的开庭陈述中指出的那样，检方旨在“利用国际法来应对我们这个时代最大的威胁——侵略战争。”1 尽管如此，尽管纽伦堡法院审判了 22 名纳粹领导人——以及随后的战争罪行德国和东京的审判起诉了其他军事人物——杰克逊支持的侵​​略罪成为事后的想法。在这些诉讼程序之后，学者和评论员在很大程度上认为侵略指控有问题，许多人将起诉战争罪和危害人类罪描述为法庭更持久的遗产。 2 事实上，即使在令人兴奋的冷战后时期，产生了南斯拉夫和卢旺达问题特设国际法庭以及建立国际刑事法院（ICC）的非凡协议，侵略罪也被排除在这些机构的管辖范围之外。然而，一小部分国际律师（纽伦堡检察官本杰明·费伦茨就是其中之一）从未放弃定义国际侵略罪并将其纳入国际刑事法院管辖范围的理想（第 58-59 页）。这一理想于 2010 年在乌干达坎帕拉成为现实，当时国际刑事法院缔约国大会同意了该罪行的定义以及将其纳入国际刑事法院管辖范围的前进道路。 3 侵略罪被排除在这些机构的权限之外。然而，一小部分国际律师（纽伦堡检察官本杰明·费伦茨就是其中之一）从未放弃定义国际侵略罪并将其纳入国际刑事法院管辖范围的理想（第 58-59 页）。这一理想于 2010 年在乌干达坎帕拉成为现实，当时国际刑事法院缔约国大会同意了该罪行的定义以及将其纳入国际刑事法院管辖范围的前进道路。 3 侵略罪被排除在这些机构的权限之外。然而，一小部分国际律师（纽伦堡检察官本杰明·费伦茨就是其中之一）从未放弃定义国际侵略罪并将其纳入国际刑事法院管辖范围的理想（第 58-59 页）。这一理想于 2010 年在乌干达坎帕拉成为现实，当时国际刑事法院缔约国大会同意了该罪行的定义以及将其纳入国际刑事法院管辖范围的前进道路。 3