A/HRC/10/20 page 15 could be prosecuted (article 5.2 of the Statute). On the other side of this question of the clarity of the anti-aggression norm embedded in crimes against peace is the majority decision of the British High Court in the House of Lords in the recent case of Regina v. Jones and others to the effect that the criminality of aggressive war established at Nuremberg remains firmly established in international customary law, and its bearing on contested uses of force remains authoritative. This is an important issue that casts a shadow over the entire controversy about the Israeli attacks, and should be clarified to the extent possible in the inquiry report. 30. Other legal concerns relating to the inquiry and any accountability sequel involve the distinctive nature of the belligerent parties, including questions about the proper assessment of the legal responsibility of an occupying Power towards the occupied people from the perspective of international criminal law, the legal effects on the nature of Israeli criminal responsibility given its disengagement from Gaza in 2005, and the criminal responsibility under international law of a non-State actor that was exercising de facto administrative and governmental control during the period being investigated. B. Applicable international criminal law 31. The applicable body of international criminal law for any investigation would include the jurisprudence compiled by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which has fully examined violations of the laws of war, as contained in the jurisdictional statutes setting up such tribunals, established under the authority of the Security Council. It should also include the list of international crimes enumerated in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 32. The crimes described in the London Agreement establishing the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 were subsequently confirmed as part of customary international law by the International Law Commission in 1950 under the rubric of Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal.11 These principles are treated by most international law experts as constituting “peremptory norms” as defined in article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1988).12 Thus, if the Nuremberg categories of criminality qualify as peremptory norms embedded in international customary law, these crimes remain valid and relevant for the purpose of assessing the Israeli attacks under the labels of “crimes against peace”, “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”. Reliance on the relevance of these crimes, especially crimes against peace, is singularly important to allow 11 12 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1950, vol. II, para. 97. “A peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.”