manifest act

See: overt act
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
The below exercise assumes that a particular instance of the war crime of attacking civilians was perpetrated by Iraqi troops during the invasion of Kuwait, with the invasion concomitantly constituting the manifest act of aggression that could be criminally attributed to Hussein.
To address the crime of aggression through the war crime of attacking civilians (or of attacking civilian objects, per Article 8(2)(b)(ii)), one could argue that the manifest act of aggression itself constitutes the provision of the means for the war crime of attacking civilians.
If one finds that Hussein functioned as a military-type commander, the evidence and argumentation: (1) utilized to establish that he had the requisite mens rea of "knew or should have known" (189) that his troops would directly attack civilians; and (2) utilized to establish both the nexus to an armed conflict and his "awareness of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict" (elements four and five, respectively, of above right-hand column), could potentially establish the manifest act of aggression element, plus his awareness of the factual circumstances of same (element six).
So instead of such tangential approaches, this Article proposes a differentiated application of the proportionality principle, one that finds that a manifest act of aggression can itself constitute the war crime of excessive attack committed by the aggressor, without constituting either a war crime or crime of aggression for the soldiers executing the actual military operations.
So can such "war strategy" include the manifest act of aggression that lies at the center of the crime of aggression?
230) In a similar manner, while individual attacks pursued as part of a manifest act of aggression may individually be proportionate for those executing the military operation, the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience support an expansive interpretation of military advantage for those ordering the manifest act of aggression of which the individual attacks are an integral part, thus making those attacks excessive exclusively for high-level actors.
To recap, this exercise assumes the following: (1) that a criminal act of aggression has been committed by a particular individual; (2) that the predicate manifest act of aggression included the act of ordering an invasion of a neighboring country; and (3) that at the time the invasion was ordered, it was reasonably foreseeable that attacks by the invading forces would produce incidental civilian death and property loss in the ordinary course of the invasion.
This reasoning is arguably consistent with the principle of legality because 234 the manifest act of aggression makes the initial knowledge of incidental civilian losses one no reasonable national leader would deem necessary, thus one that does not confer the requisite military advantage needed to offset such losses.
When North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950 the attack, a manifest act of aggression, was assumed to be a Soviet plot, with Kim Il Sung (hardly known outside the peninsula) as errand boy and China as lurking pawn.
UEFA have banned the striker for one match and handed him a pounds 7,600 fine, branding his actions 'a manifest act of cheating' - but the Spanish giants have hit back with an appeal.