Article

The Syrian intervention : assessing the possible international law justifications

Michael N. Schmitt

• International law studies, Vol. 89, 2013, p. 744-756

English

Source : https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=ils (last accessed on 22.06.2020)

This article considers five possible justifications in international law for US military intervention in Syria: Security Council authorization, self-defense, enforcing treaty violations, invitation, and humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter allows intervention only with Security Council authorization or in self-defense. However, Russia and China have vetoed intervention, and Syria has not attacked or directly threatened another state. The Security Council also has a monopoly on using force to punish violations of international law, including Syria’s breaches of treaties and customary law against chemical weapons. The author also dismisses the option of accepting an invitation to intervene from Syria’s rebels, as the US continues to recognize the Assad regime as Syria’s government. The author argues that only the doctrine of humanitarian intervention might justify an attack. Recent interventions without Security Council authorization, in Africa and Yugoslavia, may support a customary law of humanitarian intervention. Unlike the US, the UK has repeatedly cited humanitarian intervention over Syria. The UK has developed three conditions for justifying humanitarian intervention: major distress, lack of alternatives, and necessity and proportionality. The author proposes a fourth: expected operational effectiveness. The author concludes by commending the UK’s development of a framework for humanitarian intervention as the most plausible legal basis for intervention in Syria. [Summary by students at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law (IHRP)]

• Full text
• More information is available for logged in users

• International law studies
• International law studies [Vol. 89, 2013]