As I told PraetorianFour on the "Afghan People Will Win" page, google terms like "War of aggression", "military attack", "military force", "use of armed force", "just war", "unjust war", "illegal war", wrt the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions.
I can not find anything that you have mentioned about for war of aggression in the manner you have described, please provide a link.
Frmrsldr has it wrong. There is absolutely nothing illegal about a country that has been attacked carrying on the war outside of its borders. If that were so, the allied powers (both the Soviets and the west) would be "aggressors" for having invaded Germany.
No, you've got it wrong. Read the links I've provided above. If using armed force to militarily attack, invade, wage a war of aggression against and/or occupy another/other countries is acceptable, then the Bush Doctrine of Strike First Pre-emptive war (which is the updated intellectual cousin to the Schleiffen Plan) would be legally and morally acceptable. The Nazi government's arguments that the Polish government, backed by the Soviet Union, was a hostile regime and that on the early hours of September 1, 1939 Polish army units attacked German radio stations and other communications infrastructure. The Nazi military invasion of Poland and regime change of the Polish government were legally and morally justified.
Keep in mind, that during WW II, there were no Nuremberg Trials and (consequently) no Nuremberg Principles (that was to come after the end of the European ground war), the Geneva Conventions were modernized and updated in 1949 and the U.N. Charter was published in April 1945.
Not to mention UN-sanctioned actions against Iraq and North Korea which extended into the territory of the aggressor states.
What the hell are you talking about? Concerning North Korea, are you talking about 1950-1953 or the past couple of years? If the past couple of years, then there is no U.N. sanctioned embargo against North Korea. It's just the U.S.A. that refuses to export to North Korea and tries to loud mouth other countries into doing the same.
In 1980, after the Iraq military was supplied with weapons and training by the U.S.A., Iraq with the support and encouragement of the U.S.A., attacked Iran. That bloody war lasted until 1988.
in 1990, Saddam sought support from his "ally" the U.S.A. for a planned invasion of Kuwait, by informing the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in Bagdad of his intentions and if this would be alright with the U.S. government. The Ambassador conferred with President H.W. Bush and replied that Iraq's relations with Kuwait were an "internal Iraqi matter and are of no concern to the U.S." Once again, the U.S. set Iraq up for another war. By now, the U.S.A. wanted Iraq crushed because Israel saw Iraq as too strong and a threat to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East. For the U.S., it was no longer good enough that Iraq sold cheap oil to the U.S. Uncle Sam wanted to set things up so that in the future, he could get his hands on free Iraqi oil.
During the blockade/embargo in the 1990s against Iraq, then Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright commented "If it gets rid of Saddam Hussein, even if it means the death of 500,000 children, it will be worth it."
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of complications created by the blockade. The blockade was both a war crime and a crime against humanity.
Besides, while a "war of aggression" is illegal (and Frmrsldr seems to think that it involves any warfare beyond one's borders), it has yet to be defined:
Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.
This is the International Criminal Court trying to define its boundaries. There is an older and higher court that has already done this: The International Justice Court. Read Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. The quote isn't saying much new about determining whether an act of aggression has occurred.
The suggestion that it should be the Security Council that does this is the problem. It's like the fox guarding the hen house. It is also the current state of affairs. That is why the illegal Afghan and Iraq wars are still being fought and why the U.N. has been muted in pointing this out. Because of the fact that the U.S.A. and its partners in crime, the U.K. and France are members of the (Five Member) Permanent Security Council. Russia and China's tacit involvement in this crime came about either through the U.S.A.'s in some way 'bribing' or cajoling (or both) them.