Crimes of Aggression Definition

Excerpt: 27 October 2015 Updated Draft Intro & Argument [PDF: 28/10/2015]

Crimes of Aggression Definition:

Rome Statute: Article 5(1)(d) & (2): Crime of Aggression:

Rome Statute of the International Court: Article 5: Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court: (1)(d) refers to the undefined ‘crime of aggression’. Section (2) states “The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Ecology of Peace Decalogue Commandment ‘crime of aggression act of war’ definition:

“Any individual who is found guilty of advocating on behalf of, legislating, enforcing, or obeying any – cultural, religious, common, statutory, constitutional, or international – alleged ‘scarcity combatant’ law; which enables or advocates on behalf of human procreation, consumption or production of resources that transgress ecological carrying capacity limits, is guilty of the ‘crime of aggression act of war’.”

Ecology of Peace Decalogue Commandment: Crime of Aggression Act of war:

“If ecologists were ever asked to write a new Decalogue, their First Commandment would be: Thou shalt not transgress the carrying capacity.. Translated into human terms, the ecological first commandment becomes: Thou shalt not transgress the cultural capacity.” – Garrett Hardin: Cultural Carrying Capacity and Tragedy of the Commons.

“We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis, the womb, and the ego. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population and consumption to below carrying capacity limits; by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis, etc.; you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population; or ego’s unjustified demand to consume in violation of carrying capacity limits; an Act of War” – Amended version of quote by Judge Jason G. Brent, in Humans: An Endangered Species.

In consideration of Judge Jason Brent’s ‘Act of War’ principles; Applicants amend Garrett Harden’s Ecology of Peace Decalogue Commandment as follows: “Thou shalt not advocate on behalf of, legislate, enforce or obey any scarcity combatant law that encourages or enables citizen’s procreation, consumption or production of resources, to transgress ecological carrying capacity limits.”

In accordance to such Ecology of Peace Decalogue Commandment, Applicants submit the following definition for Rome Statute: Article 5 (1)(d) & (2) undefined term of ‘crimes of aggression act of war’ (CoA AoW):

“Any individual who is found guilty of advocating on behalf of, legislating, enforcing, or obeying any – cultural, religious, common, statutory, constitutional, or international – ‘scarcity combatant’ social contract; which enables or advocates on behalf of human procreation, consumption or production of resources that transgress ecological carrying capacity limits, is guilty of the ‘crime of aggression act of war’.”

Crimes of Aggression Acts of War Convictions & Sentencing:

Consumption Violation Sentences: Individuals found guilty of violating consumption social contract limits; would be required to (A) either relinquish their excess consumed products; or if already spent pay an appropriate financial fine; to a conservation trust fund or similar; and (B) sign a legal agreement – similar to the MILINT Earth Day Ecology of Peace Oath (PDF) – with law enforcement authorities to commit to consuming below carrying capacity limits, and failing to honourably do so authorizing a Judge to authorize law enforcement officials, to remove their dishonourable genes from the national genepool.

Procreation Violation Sentences: Individuals found guilty of violating procreation social contract limits; would be required (A) to (i) relinquish said child for adoption (if wanted to be adopted by a family) and agree to be permanently sterilized; and (ii) sign a legal agreement – similar to aforementioned MILINT Earth Day Ecology of Peace Oath – with law enforcement authorities to commit to consuming below carrying capacity limits, and failing to honourably do so authorizing a Judge to authorize law enforcement officials to remove their dishonourable genes from the national genepool; (B) if no adoptive family is found; both parents and children are to be given their choice as to how they prefer to be humanely executed.

Sustainability Definition: A Sustainable society practices Sustainable Procreation and Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour; i.e. all of its citizens consume and procreate below carrying capacity. Sustainable Natural Resource Utilization Behaviour behaviour involves the utilization of renewable natural resources—water, cropland, pastureland, forests, and wildlife—exclusively, which can be depleted only at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature. The utilization of non-renewable natural resources (NNR’s)—fossil fuels, metals, and minerals—at any level, is not sustainable.

Carrying Capacity Sustainability: I=PAT Equation: For activities to be genuinely sustainable it must be possible for them to continue indefinitely. The impact of humanity on the environment and the demands that people place on the resources available on the planet can be summarised by what is known as the Ehrlich or IPAT equation, I=PAT. I = impact on the environment or demand for resources, P = population size, A = affluence and T = technology. The two most important conclusions deriving from this IPAT footprint relationship are that: (i) the Earth can support only a limited number of people, at a certain level of affluence, in a sustainable manner; and (ii) Population and Consumption must be reduced to below carrying capacity.

Carrying Capacity aka Biocapacity Limits: “The maximum number of individuals that can be supported sustainably by a given environment is known as its ‘carrying capacity’. Worldwide the total amount of biologically productive land and sea amounts to 12 billion global hectares (gha); or 1.8 gha each if divided by 6.7 billion each. Guerrylla Laws are drawn up in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan, who set aside 40% of their biologically productive to be returned to its natural state, for other species and wildlife conservation purposes; then that means that the total amount of biologically productive carrying capacity land available to humans is 60% of 12 billion; which amounts to 7.2 billion gha total; or 60% of 1.8 gha, which is 1 gha each. Population factor is relevant, because the more humans there are, the less biologically productive land there is for everyone else. For example:

Biocapacity limits of 6.7, 3.5, 1 Billion, 500, 250 & 100 Million: 7.2 billion global hectares of biologically productive land and water divided by (a) 6.7 billion humans, equals: 1.07 gha each; (b) 3.5 billion equals 2.05 gha each; (c) 1 billion equals 7.2 gha each; (d) 500 million equals 14.4 gha each; (e) 250 million equals 28.8 gha; (f) 100 million equals 72 gha each.

Procreation Factor: As noted, the more people there are; the less biologically productive land there is available for everyone else. According to the research of Paul Murtaugh, the procreation factor that should be added by ecology footprint organisations to their Consumption footprint calculators, is 20 per child. [Each Child increases a parent’s cumulative consumption footprint by factor of 20]

Difference between Sustainable (Leaver Eco-Innocent) v Unsustainable (Taker Scarcity Combatant): An individuals IPAT footprint is a result of: (A) Consumption Footprint multiplied by (B) Procreation Factor (Every child increases 20 Child Factor). If their IPAT footprint is below carrying capacity limits, they are an Eco-Innocent Leaver; if their IPAT footprint is above carrying capacity limits, they are a Scarcity Combatant Taker.

Total Footprint = Consumption x Procreation Factor. To work out your Consumption footprint; you will need to use a Consumption Footprint calculator. Current online footprint calculators: Global Footprint Network (copy available at Earth Day; Center for Sustainable Economy; EcoCampus. See more at Global Footprint’s Application Standards, where they detail how their calculators calculate Consumption footprints. The quiz will ask you various questions about your consumption habits, and provide you with a final consumption footprint in global hectares which is your ‘consumption footprint’. For the purposes of this calculation; avoid footprint calculator quizzes that do not provide you with your final gha consumption footprint amount, such as for example: World Wildlife Fund’s footprint calculator or Stanford International Students (which is excellent and has great detail; but does not provide you with a final footprint in gha terms). Multiply your consumption footprint gha amount by your Procreation Factor: the number of children you have procreated multiplied by 20. The total amount is your Total Footprint.

Current Procreation Factor Error in Footprint Quizzes: As noted all aforementioned Footprint calculators are in fact not ‘Total Footprint’ calculators; because they don’t include a major variable – the procreation factor – in their quiz questions. They only include the individual’s consumption. If they did add the procreation factor into their quiz, the individuals taking their footprint quiz’s results would simply go through the roof, from giving answers such as ‘if we all consumed like you we would need 1.5 or 2.8 earths’ to ‘if we all consumed and bred like you, we would need 20, or 40 or 200 earths’; which would provide a far more ‘urgent danger alert’ conclusion message for those quiz takers, about the massive importance of the procreation factor in the Total Eco-Footprint. I submit (and I could be wrong, but I don’t think so) that once these Footprint calculators start including the procreation factor in their ‘Total Footprint’ equations, the cumulative results of individuals who have procreated children, will reduce the total footprint of the individual whose procreation factor is zero. For example: Currently two people with the exact same consumption habits could take their quiz and end up with the same total footprint; of for example: 12.75 gha; irrespective of whether one had zero children and the other had 4 children. This error in these footprint quizzes provides no urgent incentive to reduce breeding, which makes a massive difference to how the total footprint is calculated. Until the quizzes correct this error, I have substituted my own correction, as follows:

Procreation Factor: 0 children (x 0.5); 1 child (x 20); 2 children: (x 40) and so on. For example: Former Acting Clerk Applicant’s Consumption Footprint using Sustainable Economy’s Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). She has no children, consequently her procreation factor is 0.5. Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0.5) = Total Eco Footprint of 6.375 gha.