A/HRC/10/20 page 14 especially with respect to the responsibility and capacity of the United Nations system. In this regard, legal uncertainties and political obstacles to the establishment of effective mechanisms should be acknowledged in the report. 27. It should be remembered that establishing evidence of the violation of international humanitarian law creates a non-criminal responsibility on the part of a State, and possibly of a non-State actor, depending on the view taken with regard to the recent development of international treaty and customary laws of war, including the overall impact of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) on the clarification of relevant legal norms. It should be made clear in the inquiry report that violations of the laws of war, even if grave breaches do not automatically constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or crimes against peace, even though article 8 of the Rome Statute treats all established grave breaches as war crimes. Potential legal accountability of political actors (including States) and individuals requires further assessment of whether the allegations and evidence appear to indicate violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and thus provide a solid basis in fact and law for charging the commission of international crimes.10 28. It is important that an inquiry in the context of the military operations initiated on 27 December 2008 and continuing until 18 January 2009 evaluate the allegations on both sides, including the issues of alleged criminality associated with both the decision of the Government of Israel to launch the attacks and initiate a ground invasion of Gaza, and the circumstances surrounding the firing of rockets by Palestinian militants. It is further recommended that the underlying claim of Israel that it was acting in self-defence be evaluated in relation to the contention that such an attack violated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and amounted to an act of aggression under the circumstances, and whether the reliance on disproportionate use of force or the inherently indiscriminate nature of the military campaign should be treated as a criminal violation of international customary and treaty law. There exists here a complex and unresolved issue as to whether an occupying Power can claim self-defence in relation to an occupied society, and whether its use of force, even if excessive, and of a border-crossing variety, can be regarded as aggression. Israel seems to be barred from relying on its status as occupier, considering that it claims that the occupation has ended; of course the inquiry report need not respect that interpretation of the legal relationship. 29. There are difficult issues bearing on the status of what were called crimes against peace at the Nuremberg trials. On the one side, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court does not yet include aggression or crimes against peace as falling within the competence of the tribunal owing to a failure to agree upon a definition of aggression. In the event of an agreement within the framework of the International Criminal Court, the crime of aggression 10 According to the International Court of Justice, a State may be held legally responsible for the commission of the crime of genocide, but only individuals may be prosecuted, convicted and punished for violations of international criminal law. The Special Rapporteur includes this reference solely to clarify the issue of potential State responsibility, and does not intend to imply, directly or indirectly, that the Israeli military operations could be construed as “genocide”. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), paras. 142-201.