In conducting investigations and prosecutions concerning the crime of aggression, the Office of the Prosecutor should adopt an approach that is independent, leadership-focused, evidence-driven and consistent with the exceptional nature of the crime.

The crime of aggression is distinct from other crimes within the Rome Statute because it concerns the unlawful use of armed force by a State and is directed principally at individuals who are in a position effectively to exercise control over or direct the political or military action of a State. The OTP should therefore focus its investigations on senior political and military leaders who played a decisive role in planning, preparing, initiating or executing the State's act of aggression.

At the same time, the OTP should maintain a particularly rigorous evidentiary threshold. Not every unlawful or controversial use of force will amount to the crime of aggression. Under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute, the act must constitute a manifest violation of the UN Charter by its character, gravity and scale. The Prosecutor should therefore assess these elements carefully and avoid interpreting the crime so broadly that it becomes a mechanism for criminalising every disputed resort to force.

The OTP should also ensure that its approach remains genuinely independent from political considerations. Aggression is inherently connected with international peace and security and may involve powerful political actors. This makes prosecutorial independence particularly important. The nationality, political influence or international position of a potential suspect should not determine whether an investigation is pursued.

A further priority should be distinguishing aggression from war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although the same situation may involve all three, the legal elements are different. The OTP should investigate the crime of aggression on its own terms while considering its factual relationship with other Rome Statute crimes.

Finally, the OTP should address jurisdictional questions at an early stage. The special jurisdictional regime applicable to aggression creates important limitations on the Court's authority. A careful assessment of jurisdiction, complementarity and admissibility should therefore form part of the initial investigative strategy.

Ultimately, the OTP should neither pursue aggression cases merely for their political significance nor avoid difficult cases because of their political sensitivity. Its approach should be guided by law, evidence, gravity and consistency. The credibility of the crime of aggression will depend not only on whether prosecutions occur, but on whether the Office can demonstrate that the same legal standards are applied to powerful and less powerful States alike.