'The acculumated evil of the whole': Individual responsibility for the crime of aggression

This paper explores whether ordinary soldiers are criminally responsible for participating in crimes of aggression. The symmetry thesis asserts that combatants have the right to kill opposing combatants and cannot be held culpable for crimes of aggression when they act on orders from a legitimate government authority. The counter principle of asymmetry asserts that war is a resort to acts which are inherently criminal, and only combatants engaged in a lawful conflict may use proportional force in its furtherance. The paper will compare the role played by each interpretive principle as they are applied in a number of areas of the law. In each case, the asymmetry thesis better expresses principles of justice, is more consistent with generally accepted principles of international and criminal law, and is more securely established as a long-standing principle in law, custom, and international relations, and therefore better embodies the true state of international customary law.