Abstract
Since its first codification in 1945,1 the crime of aggression was essentially regarded as a crime against the state.2 Most recently, in line with this customary understanding, I defined patriacide — an extreme form of aggression — as ‘the deliberate destruction of a State’s constitutional, political, economic, or technical organisation inherent to its statehood’.3 Likewise, aggression is normally considered as a ‘leadership crime’,4 and tribunals were consistent in reaffirming this element,5 with only rare exceptions.6 Tom Dannenbaum’s excellent book questions these, and a few other, standard assumptions, and offers ground-breaking perspectives on relevant rules of international law.7 Indeed, if Dannenbaum’s novel perspectives were to prevail, they might entail far-reaching revisions of the architecture of international law as we know it — a prospect which I personally consider as warranted but one which, unfortunately, seems unlikely to materialize in the near future. In 11...