General Comment 36 of the Human Rights Committee, adopted in 2018, asserts that ‘States parties engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto article 6 of the Covenant.’ One question about this claim is whether it reduces incentives for compliance with international humanitarian law for States and their agents—incentives provided through the principles of belligerent equality and combatant immunity. It is argued that it does not do so—such a worry about incentives is not a reason to reject the claim in General Comment 36. In the process, it can also be shown that, if accepted, this claim is interesting in another way: it entails, in effect, a duty on States to prosecute acts of aggression insofar as they entail killing, as they often will. This itself is doctrinally innovative. As to who is to be prosecuted, it is the political and military leadership of the State. It is their decision to wage war unlawfully that renders the killings arbitrary.

人权事务委员会于 2018 年通过的第 36 号一般性意见声称，“缔约国从事国际法定义的侵略行为，导致生命被剥夺，事实上违反了《公约》第 6 条。” 关于这一说法的一个问题是，它是否会减少对国家及其代理人遵守国际人道法的激励——这些激励是通过交战平等和战斗豁免原则提供的。有人认为它没有这样做——对激励的这种担忧并不是拒绝第 36 号一般性评论中的主张的理由。在此过程中，还可以证明，如果被接受，该主张在另一种方面是有趣的：实际上，它要求各国有义务对涉及杀戮的侵略行为进行起诉，因为它们通常会这样做。这本身在理论上是创新的。至于起诉谁，是国家的政治和军事领导。正是他们非法发动战争的决定使杀戮变得任意。