Contents

Talk:Crime against peace

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Crime of aggression Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Crime of aggression

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anti-war This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles Crime and Criminal Biography This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Human rights This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles International relations: Law This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles This redirect is supported by WikiProject International law. Military history: Technology This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

The contents of the Crime against peace page were merged into Crime of aggression on 2 March 2022 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

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? 67.53.78.55Shootie2HUNT 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.

Why is this being used to push anti-Bush propaganda? Jtrainor 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, that one looks strange to me. Ecocide is something very much different. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think 'crimes of peace' in that article is based on the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind, which was the only draft code to include a 'crime against the environment'. The authors must've either: (1) assumed ecocide was thus a crime against peace because it is supposedly not a crime against security of mankind, or (2) just shortened the phrase crimes against peace and security of mankind to 'crimes of peace'. In any case ecocide is not refered by this name in any official (UN) documentation.Perudotes (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we must provide some examples. I restored some of them sourced to an academic secondary RS: [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing more than blatant POV and cherry-picking in violation of WP:NPOV. No tribunal to date has defined those "examples" as such, nor did most scholars. The source is the notoriously biased, factually incorrect and much-criticized introduction by Stéphane Courtois, who is infamous for his strong political bias, and is reflecting his personal POV. Do not add cherry-picked "examples", let alone those taken from such dubious and controversial sources like that and not universally accepted by scholars, as it would ruin the neutrality of the article and make those "examples" look like crimes against peace par excellence. 119.17.193.5 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 213.207.222.60 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]