Beginning with the debate, there is first Ryan Goodman of NYU on Just Security, followed by response there from Michael Lewis of Ohio Northern, and finally a response to both from Kevin Heller of LSE at Opinio Juris. Who do you think has the better argument?
Today, at a conference in Paris, the President of Iraq requested that the international community take action against ISIS in Syria in order to defend Iraq. Is there any legal significance to that? If so, why and what is the significance?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the "unwilling or unable" test is valid and would justify action by the US. It seems like theses authors are construing the test to be "unwilling AND unable" if only one is required then it is easily met either by Syria or Iraq, since if they were will and able to deal with the problem they would have done so already, or at least would be well on their way.
ReplyDeleteSyria has offered to work with the United States on airstrikes, and the US has refused, most likely because as a country we are not thrilled with his actions, most recently in the Arab Spring. If the US worked with Assad in stopping ISIS, and was successful, Assad would gain more power and legitimacy as a leader. While this is probably true, I think ISIS represents a bigger threat to regional stability than does Assad. I think the US should choose the lesser of two evils and work with the regime to combat ISIS. If the US is worried about how Assad will look as a leader afterwards, we can always use social media advance the idea that Assad is weak because he needed outside help to fix his problem.
Good Points David. I was wondering though, I don't know anything, but I wonder of we have to "work" with either? I think the administration puts together somewhat of a compelling argument. According to the New York Times, the strikes over the weekend were to stop the militants from seizing an important damn on the Euphrates, and subsequently the threat of flooding Baghdad. Although the strikes were in Iraq, ISIS is streaming across the border of Iraq, and refuges have been forced to secluded mountain-tops. If the United States justifies it actions on a collective self-defense argument, can it internationally be valid without the direct consent from Assad? The militants are housed in Syria. They are the aggressor across borders, and Assad seems to be unable to control. By the definition they seem to be the aggressor. I think the strikes can be valid by saying they are necessary, sanctioned response of self-defense for an overrun and internationally recognized Iraq. ANTHONY BRUNA.
ReplyDelete