On 11 November 2014 Eleanor V. E. Sharpston, Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered her Opinion in the case Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland. This case follows a request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München and concerns a US national who sought asylum in Germany. Mr Shepherd was trained as a maintenance mechanic for Apache helicopters and transferred to Germany in 2003; then, in September 2004, he was deployed in Iraq for one year. Subsequently, when his unit was recalled in Iraq, he refused to perform his military services as he deemed that the conflict was illegal. Thus, he applied for asylum in Germany as he claimed he risked persecution in the US. Indeed, because he did not reject the use of war and force tout court, he did not make any request for not being deployed on grounds of conscientious objection; therefore, he was liable to punishment in the US for refusal to perform his military services. In his asylum application, Mr Shepherd relied on the 2004 Qualification Directive (EU Directive 2004/83/EC). In particular, article 9, paragraph 2 (e),considers an act of persecution the prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses as set out in article 12 (2) of the same directive. Article 12, paragraph 2 (a), which reproduces article 1 (F) (a) of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, provides that
[a] third country national or a stateless person is excluded from being a refugee where there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) he or she has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes (…).
This case shows how EU law and refugee law are intertwined with other branches of international law, such as international criminal law. In particular, while according to the Advocate General Mr Shepherd might be granted asylum on the basis of article 9, paragraph 2 (e), of the Qualification Directive, with reference to the possible commission of war crimes, some aspects of the notion of crimes against peace might be of relevance in the ECJ’s decision. With respect to crimes against peace, the only precedent the drafters of the Geneva Convention had in mind was article VI of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Nevertheless, the formula chosen for article 1 (F) (a), namely the reference to the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such a crime, permits both the Refugee Convention and the qualification Directive that follows it to keep being updated with regard to any further developments of international law. In particular, the wording of article 1 (F) seems to include also those treaties which are not yet in force, such as the 2010 Kampala amendment to the ICC Statute. When defining the crime of aggression, this latter makes an explicit reference to the UN Charter. Thus, the way the UN Charter, especially its provisions which regulate states’ use of force, has been implemented cannot be overlooked. Coming now to article 9, paragraph 2 (e) of the Directive, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has affirmed that
UNHCR welcomes the recognition that prosecution or punishment for refusing to perform military service can constitute persecution. UNHCR understands that the provision will also apply where the refusal to serve relates to a conflict that in and of itself is contrary to public international law, such as for example when it has been condemned by the Security Council.
In this regard, the 2006 Canadian Federal Court decision in the Hizman case has confirmed that refugee protection is available to individuals who breach domestic laws, if compliance with those laws would otherwise result in the violation of ‘accepted international norms’. However, it has also clarified that
It is only those with the power to plan, prepare, initiate and wage a war of aggression who are culpable for crimes against peace; (…). The ordinary foot-soldier such as the applicant is not expected to make his own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict in which he may be called upon to fight. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible merely for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his own personal wartime conduct was otherwise proper.
In Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, the Advocate General has adopted the same line of reasoning. Indeed, she argued that ‘[s]uch a crime by its very nature can only be committed by personnel in a high position of authority representing a State or a State-like entity. Mr Shepherd was never in that position. It is therefore unlikely that he would have been at risk of committing such an act.’ Article 8bis, paragraph 1 approved in Kampala also provides that
[f]or the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime of aggression’ means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
In sum, the so-called leadership requirement of the crime of aggression is not particularly problematic. On the other hand, however, one cannot help noticing a significant discrepancy between the UNHCR Comments, the Qualification Directive as interpreted by the Advocate General, and the Kampala amendment, with respect to the UN Security Council (SC)’s role as to the legality of a conflict . While, according to the UNHCR, an explicit condemnation of a conflict by the Council would be a ground, although not the only one- of illegality of a war, Ms Sharpston stated as follows:
I am not sure that I understand precisely what is meant, as a matter of law, by the expression ‘sanctioned by the international community’. The UN Charter does not define what constitutes a legitimate war; nor am I aware of another international instrument that fills that lacuna (if lacuna it be). I cannot see that seeking to define the scope of Article 9(2)(e) of the Qualification Directive by reference to an undefined expression helps to take matters forward. Since the existence of a UNSC mandate is not a prerequisite to starting a war or defending against aggression, its presence or absence cannot be determinative of whether acts listed in Article 12(2) of the Qualification Directive occur.
If it is true that a war fought on self-defence does not need any prior UNSC authorization, one should recall that article 39 of the UN Charter provides for the possibility for the Council to decide to use force whenever an act of aggression occurs. Thus, by making reference to the UN Charter in its threshold clause, article 8bis, paragraph 1, of the ICC Statute excludes any possible criminal responsibility every time the Council has adopted such a decision. At the same time, while any condemnation of the Council is supposed to be merely relevant for jurisdictional purposes, it might not impact on the substantive nature of the crime of aggression. In brief, in her Opinion the Advocate General has failed to consider that the Kampala amendment is the international instrument ‘drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes’ par excellence. In this sense, the ECJ might depart from what has been argued by Ms Sharpston. This might be relevant in future cases involving military leaders of a State in the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression. In other words, since a prior UNSC authorization to use force makes a conflict legal under public international law, such a conflict would by no means constitute a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Thus, thanks to the Kampala amendment, a similar act could not be considered as an exclusion ground according to the Qualification Directive and, as a consequence, could not be relevant for the application of its article 9, paragraph 2 (e). Importantly, this might happen even before the Kampala amendment enters into force, no matter which state is going to ratify it, and regardless of the relevant state’s adherence to the ICC Statute.
 Resolution RC/Res.6, Annex I.
 UNHCR, Annotated Comments on the EC Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted (January 2005).
 Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2006 FC 420,  1 F.C.R.).
 Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2006 FC 420,  1 F.C.R. 561. See also D. Whetham, P. Robinson, A. Ellner, When Soldiers Say No: Selective Conscientious Objection in the Modern Military (Ashgate 2014).
 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C‑472/13  E.C.R. __ (delivered on 11 November 2014) (not yet reported) § 42.
 Resolution RC/Res.6, Annex I.
 Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C‑472/13  E.C.R. __ (delivered on 11 November 2014) (not yet reported) § 70.