sive development over time, both formally with regard to the ICC, and in many local settings where the content of the norm can be defined and applied. Indeed, from a pluralist perspective the limited reach of ICC jurisdiction may actually be beneficial, both because it renders the jurisdictional assertion less subject to immediate backlash and because it provides more room for courts, tribunals, and other actors at other levels in the international system to offer alternative approaches to defining the crime itself. Pluralists argue that institutional frameworks that allow for multiple interpretations can help build legitimacy and foster norm development and inculcation over time. Especially in an environment of intense conflict over the contours of the norm, asserting broad ICC jurisdiction to prosecute aggression could backfire: indeed, such assertions of jurisdiction could generate further resistance to the entire court as illegitimate, particularly given preexisting hostility to the ICC from powerful countries such as the United States. Thus, although some might be concerned that limiting the ICC’s jurisdictional reach will undermine accountability, we must remember that the ICC will never prosecute large numbers of people anyway, so the important question is the long-term seepage of the norm into local settings. And that process of norm inculcation, paradoxically, might be better fostered by a restrained jurisdictional reach because it reduces resistance to the court and provides more space for localized development of the contours of the crime of aggression over time. For example, the proposed African Court of Justice and Human Rights will use an interpretation of the crime of aggression that builds on the Kampala definition, but expands it in significant ways.26 Pluralism is, of course, just one lens through which to view the crime of aggression. Yet, it is a particularly helpful one in the current era. The ICC, like so many other supranational institutions—from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the European Union, from the World Health Organization to the World Bank, and the United Nations itself—face unprecedented levels of resistance and attack. Indeed, as recently as June 2020 the Trump administration announced new, draconian sanctions against the ICC.27 Muscular assertions of international authority and the rigid imposition of new norms risk provoking even more intense nationalist backlash. In this context, pluralist safety valves, which embrace competing interpretations and approaches, may be the best hope for the international system. As Weisbord’s book so ably demonstrates, Jackson’s efforts at Nuremberg to establish a crime of aggression, while seemingly “unsuccessful” at the time, helped pave the way for Kampala, and in turn Kampala opens space for new arguments in new contexts. The process of norm development never ends, and it is not a bad thing for those designing international institutions to acknowledge—and perhaps sometimes even facilitate— the ongoing process of legal pluralism that inevitably follows the establishment of any formal legal rule.

中文翻译：

---

针对非国家行为者的自卫。作者：Mary Ellen O'Connell、Christian J. Tams 和 Dire Tladi。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，2019 年。Pp。二十五、285。索引。

随着时间的推移，无论是正式的关于国际刑事法院，还是在许多当地环境中，规范的内容可以被定义和应用。事实上，从多元化的角度来看，国际商会管辖权的有限范围实际上可能是有益的，因为它使管辖权主张较少受到立即的强烈反对，并且因为它为法院、法庭和国际体系其他级别的其他参与者提供了更多空间提供定义犯罪本身的替代方法。多元主义者认为，允许多种解释的制度框架可以帮助建立合法性，并随着时间的推移促进规范的发展和灌输。尤其是在围绕规范轮廓发生激烈冲突的环境中，主张国际刑事法院的广泛管辖权来起诉侵略可能会适得其反：事实上，这种对管辖权的主张可能会进一步抵制整个法院，因为它是非法的，特别是考虑到美国等强国对国际刑事法院的敌意。因此，尽管有些人可能担心限制 ICC 的管辖范围会削弱问责制，但我们必须记住，无论如何，ICC 永远不会起诉大量人员，因此重要的问题是规范长期渗透到当地环境中。矛盾的是，这种规范灌输的过程可能会因受限制的管辖权范围而得到更好的促进，因为它减少了对法院的抵制，并为随着时间的推移侵略罪的轮廓的局部发展提​​供了更多空间。例如，提议的非洲法院和人权法院将对侵略罪进行解释，该解释建立在坎帕拉定义的基础上，但会以重要的方式对其进行扩展。 26 当然，多元主义只是观察侵略罪的一个视角. 然而，它在当前时代特别有用。国际刑事法院和许多其他超国家机构——从北大西洋公约组织到欧盟，从世界卫生组织到世界银行，以及联合国本身——面临着前所未有的阻力和攻击。事实上，就在 2020 年 6 月，特朗普政府宣布对 ICC 实施新的、严厉的制裁。 27 对国际权威的强硬主张和对新规范的严格实施有可能引发更强烈的民族主义反弹。在这种情况下，包含相互竞争的解释和方法的多元安全阀可能是国际体系的最大希望。正如韦斯博德的书如此巧妙地展示的那样，杰克逊在纽伦堡确立侵略罪的努力虽然在当时看似“不成功”，但为坎帕拉铺平了道路，反过来坎帕拉为新背景下的新论点开辟了空间。规范发展的过程永无止境，对于那些设计国际机构的人来说，承认——有时甚至可能促进——在任何正式法律规则的建立之后不可避免地进行的法律多元化进程并不是一件坏事。杰克逊在纽伦堡确立侵略罪的努力虽然在当时看似“不成功”，但为坎帕拉铺平了道路，反过来，坎帕拉为新背景下的新论点开辟了空间。规范发展的过程永无止境，对于那些设计国际机构的人来说，承认——有时甚至可能促进——在任何正式法律规则的建立之后不可避免地进行的法律多元化进程并不是一件坏事。杰克逊在纽伦堡确立侵略罪的努力虽然在当时看似“不成功”，但为坎帕拉铺平了道路，反过来，坎帕拉为新背景下的新论点开辟了空间。规范发展的过程永无止境，对于那些设计国际机构的人来说，承认——有时甚至可能促进——在任何正式法律规则的建立之后不可避免地进行的法律多元化进程并不是一件坏事。