This project takes its cue from the arguments, exemplified by Bill Richardson’s
statement, against legally defining the crime of aggression. These arguments by
default (either designed or accidental) favour instead political action such as in
the United Nations Security Council against the International Criminal Court in
framing matters of aggression and the use of force. The focus on the United States
is in recognition of both its indispensable role and pivotal influence in developing
international criminal law and its preponderant military force. This correlation of
law-making power with preponderant force is no coincidence at all.
1