We will not be examining the international law relating to the use of force until the second half of the course. Nonetheless, you should be monitoring the events in Syria, and beginning to think about the issues. NATO members are readying for some kind of military intervention in Syria. The U.K. is seeking U.N. Security Council authority, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Would a use of force in the absence of such authority be legal? The Arab League has not endorsed a use of force, which complicates the U.S. diplomatic position, but how important would such endorsement be from a legal perspective? And what is the significance of the use of chemical weapons? In other words, is it legally different from the other indiscriminate killing of civilians that has been carried out for over two years in Syria (and other countries for that matter), such that it provides some additional justification for intervention?Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Use of Force in Syria
We will not be examining the international law relating to the use of force until the second half of the course. Nonetheless, you should be monitoring the events in Syria, and beginning to think about the issues. NATO members are readying for some kind of military intervention in Syria. The U.K. is seeking U.N. Security Council authority, which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Would a use of force in the absence of such authority be legal? The Arab League has not endorsed a use of force, which complicates the U.S. diplomatic position, but how important would such endorsement be from a legal perspective? And what is the significance of the use of chemical weapons? In other words, is it legally different from the other indiscriminate killing of civilians that has been carried out for over two years in Syria (and other countries for that matter), such that it provides some additional justification for intervention?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Technically, Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force without the unanimous consent and authorization of the U.N security counsel. However, given the current chain of events and climate, an attack by the U.S. and Britain seems imminent.
ReplyDeleteA possible legal justification for the attack could be self-defense, which is customary international law. In order for this legal justification to hold water, the U.S. and Britain must make the argument that self-defense applies because they are: defending U.S. and British citizens, respectively; defending civilians in Syria and defense of others is implicit in self-defense; defending against the violence in Syria as a direct threat to the U.S. and Britain; or some other variation.
Regarding endorsement by the Arab League, I cannot think of a legal reason why the U.S. and Britain would require the support of the Arab League; however, use of force in Syria would clearly further complicate an already complicated relationship, and yet an extremely important one from an economic perspective.
Finally, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is indeed significant, but it is only one of many violations of international law that have taken place in Syria recently. Arguably, Syria is engaged in a non-international armed conflict, between the State (the Asaad regime) and a non-State armed group. As such, common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies as well as all customary international law. By using chemical weapons, the Asaad regime has clearly violated the principle of unnecessary suffering, which is customary international law. However, in addition, the Asaad regime has targeted and engaged in further indiscriminate killing of civilians in violation of the principles of distinction and proportionality, which are also customary international law.