ABSTRACT
This chapter investigates the impact of both the International Criminal Court and the doctrine of responsibility to protect on the ius ad bellum. According to a common interpretation, the development of the doctrine and of the Court had contradictory effects on the law on the use of force. On the one hand, the Rome Statute motivated the criminalisation and prosecution of the crime of aggression. On the other hand, the responsibility to protect, at least in some propositions, has been presented as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force. Interventions in violation of the UN Charter might be justified based on the doctrine. The responsibility to protect could therefore be presented as a defence to a charge of aggression. In contrast with this common interpretation, this chapter argues that, in parallel with the Court, the doctrine reinforced the prohibition on using force. Indeed, the responsibility to protect highlighted that the majority of states reject the legitimisation of interventions in violation of the UN Charter.
