The aim of the meeting is to continue the discussions held at the previous intersessional meeting in June 2005, at the fourth session of the Assembly of States Parties in November/December 2005 and in the context of the “Virtual Working Group”. Three main sets of issues have emerged and these were addressed in discussion papers submitted to the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression. It is suggested that the work in Princeton focus on these areas (items 1–3 below).

The “crime” of aggression – defining the individual's conduct

Discussion paper 1 (The crime of aggression and article 25, paragraph 3, of the Statute) addresses the main question identified in this respect: How does the proposed definition of the individual's conduct (cf. current wording of the Coordinator's text) square with the provisions of article 25, paragraph 3 (a) to (d), of the Statute, which in general terms and as a “default rule”(Rome Statute Part 3: “General Principles of Criminal Law”) describe the forms of participation in a crime? Two different approaches have been identified. The Coordinator's text implies a “monistic” approach in that the description of the individual's conduct includes the description of different forms of “participation”, which would otherwise be addressed in article 25, paragraph 3; therefore the Coordinator's text suggests that the application of that paragraph be excluded. The discussions in Princeton last year, however, brought support for a “differentiated” approach, which seeks to apply article 25, paragraph 3, to the crime of aggression as well. This might, however, necessitate a revision of the definition of the individual's conduct in the Coordinator's text, in order to remove the duplication. Some proposals were submitted to that effect, but they have not yet been thoroughly discussed. Discussion paper 1 raises questions and makes suggestions with respect to these proposals. (On a similar issue, namely the duplication of the phrase “intentionally and knowingly” in article 30 of the Statute and in the Coordinator's text, participants agreed that the default rule of article 30 should apply).