iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Craig Martin

GET UPDATES FROM Craig Martin
 

International Law and the U.S. Military Strikes on Syria

Posted: 08/31/2013 6:52 pm

There has been insufficient analysis, by both policy makers and the media, of the legality of the looming use of military force against Syria. As usual, the law seems to be beside the point. But this not only ignores a key factor, but is rather paradoxical given that one of the primary justifications for the strikes is that they are to punish the Syrian government for its violations of international law. Legality should be an important factor in the decision-making process, because if the use of force is itself not lawful, then it represents nothing more than vigilante justice, likely doing far more harm than good to the international legal order.

There is little doubt that the Syrian regime has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people over the last two years. If it is proven that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in the attack last week, that would constitute a separate and grave violation of international law. All of this screams out for a response by the international community.

The reality, however, is that these crimes do not justify a unilateral use of force, and the contemplated American military strikes would not be lawful. Indeed, the Obama administration, while tossing out platitudes about complying with international norms, has not even tried to make the legal case justifying the use of force.

To assess the legality of the strikes we need to look at the international law legal regime on the use of force, established with the U.N. system after World War II. It prohibits any and all use of force against other states (Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter), except for the purpose of individual or collective self-defense (Art. 51), or as authorized by the U.N. Security Council for the purposes of restoring or maintaining collective security (Arts. 39-42). In order for a state to use force in self-defense, it or some other state must have suffered an armed attack (or, under some interpretations, be the target of an imminent armed attack) launched by the target state.

Neither condition is satisfied in the case of Syria. It has not attacked any other state, despite half-hearted arguments claiming that certain incidents with Turkey, many months ago, rise to that level. Nor, obviously, has the U.N. Security Council authorized any use of force against Syria. The fact that Russia and China, both veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, oppose any such action means that U.N. Security Council authorization is not likely any time soon.

It bears noting that one reason that Russia and China oppose authorization for even a limited use of force to protect civilians, is because the U.S. and NATO abused such authority in Libya. The Security Council authorized a use of force in Libya for the limited purpose of establishing no-fly zones and to take all other necessary measures to protect civilians. But NATO forces consistently attacked command and control structures and effectively assisted the rebels in overthrowing the Gaddafi regime, arguably in violation of the limited authority granted by the U.N.

While Russia has many other self-interested reasons for supporting Assad and blocking Western interference in Syria, it has a valid point in treating with deep suspicion any proposed Security Council resolutions granting even limited authority to use force in Syria. The U.S. and other NATO countries are thus partially responsible for having recently undermined and weakened the U.N. collective security system.

It is being argued that the principles of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and humanitarian intervention provide a legal justification for intervention without U.N. authority. U.S. policy makers and other supporters of the strikes have advanced the NATO air campaign in Kosovo in 1999, undertaken to prevent a potential Serb slaughter of ethnic Albanians, as a precedent that would justify intervention in Syria under that principle. But the principle of humanitarian intervention and R2P are not yet established law, and the Kosovo intervention is generally recognized as having been unlawful.

Humanitarian intervention is an "emerging norm" of customary international law, which might serve as a third exception to the prohibition against the use of force, permitting states to intervene militarily in a state to prevent the government there from committing atrocities against its own people. The principle is founded upon the doctrine of R2P, which holds that where a state fails in its responsibility to protect its own people it loses some of its sovereign rights against external interference in its affairs, and the international community takes on some responsibility to protect the citizens of such a state from its own government. The use of force would be permissible in such instances, when employed as a last resort, for the sole purpose of protecting the victim population, and it is proportionate to the threat and the benefits outweigh the likely harm.

If the principle of humanitarian intervention becomes established law, it would provide the basis for the international community to intervene in situations like Syria. But it is not yet established law. Moreover, there are mixed views on whether humanitarian intervention should also require U.N. Security Council authorization, as was the case with the intervention in Libya in 2011. If so, then it would not be an exception to the prohibition at all, but would merely be a specific basis for U.N. Security Council action. But if humanitarian intervention is to become a third exception, Syria is not a good case for trying to advance the process of establishing that norm, because the motives of the U.S. are so clearly mixed.

What about the separate argument that the strikes are a response to the use of chemical weapons? It has been said by American and French leaders that Syria must be punished for breaking a taboo by violating the clearly establishing prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. As already said, if the Asssad regime did employ chemical weapons, that would constitute grave violations of international law. But even if proven, that does not create a legal justification for other states to use force against Syria. There is no "weapons of mass destruction" exception to the prohibition against the use of force.

There is an understandable moral outrage at the crimes committed in Syria, and a profound frustration at the failure of the United Nations and other institutions of the international legal system to help resolve the conflict and protect the people of Syria. But engaging in an unlawful use of force to "punish" and "send a message to" the Assad regime will do little for the Syrian people, and will almost certainly do more harm than good to the international legal order.

Vigilante justice, while purporting to enforce legal norms, typically erodes the normative power of the legal system it seeks to support, and further undermines the rule of law. The ramifications of the Libya operation reflect the harm caused merely by exceeding existing legal authority, while the profound harm to the system caused by the unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 are yet to be fully understood. It is simply perverse to justify a deliberate and clear violation of a fundamental principle of international law, on the grounds that one is trying to enforce related international legal norms.

The foregoing discussion has assumed that the limited military strikes on Syria are in fact motivated by a desire to enforce international law, and to protect the Syrian people. But those assumptions are increasingly doubtful. It is certainly difficult to defend these limited strikes now on the basis of humanitarian intervention, given that more than 100,000 people have been killed over the space of two years with no direct response having been taken by the West.

The strikes are more directly in response to the chemical weapons use, and it is also increasingly clear that what is really at stake is American "credibility" in defending the "red line" that President Obama laid down in a speech last August. The policy arguments that are being bandied about in D.C. have far more to do with the potential messages for Iran and North Korea, than they do about protecting the people of Syria. Indeed, the concern now appears to be ensuring that the strikes are sufficiently surgical and limited, so as not to overly disturb the status quo in Syria, because of the risks of Islamist rebels seizing power.

A use of military force for the primary purpose of defending American "credibility," in which many innocent people will be killed, and in which the normative power of the international legal order will again be undermined, is not only unlawful, but is also illegitimate and unjust.

 

Follow Craig Martin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craigxmartin

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
28 minutes ago ( 5:21 AM)
Man... Americans have lost faith in themselves.
5 hours ago ( 1:16 AM)
Agree mostly with Prof. Martin, and refer to him in my own blog post "The Botched Case for Intervention in Syria" (see http://tinyurl.com/l52g5lz)

One of my main points is that I am dumbfounded that Obama has not even nominally followed the international legal route. By not doing so and by boxing himself in, the outcome can only be negative: either there will be no action against Syria and loss of credibility, or action without legal and international support and probably counter-productive consequences. I just don't understand how he and his advisers could let this happen.
02:08 AM on 09/03/2013
United States government never abides by the international laws and basic human decency. There's a reason why Dr. King called this country the greatest source of violence around the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
03:01 PM on 09/02/2013
Mr. Martin is incorrect on many different levels. So many errors.

The assumption of massive civilian casualties is an assumption that ignores recent record. This may be the most telegraphed attack in recent memory. If Assad camps civilians in close proximity to military targets as human shields, the sin is Assad's.

The use of chemical weapons is prohibited by international law. By precedent, when an outlaw regime crosses a threshold of the use of these weapons, especially when used against civilians who lacked any defense, the international community is obligated to offer protection. To do nothing would violate not just international law, and the Geneva Convention, it would violate the law of man.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rich Velay
Reality is progressive
12:09 AM on 09/03/2013
Who is to blame for civilian deaths, due to the actions of either the US or Syria, is going to mean very little to those civilians who die. Having the "moral high ground" doesn't count for much if you are deceased...

Cite some precedent with regards to unilateral action being taken by nations responding to CW use undertaken within the borders of a sovereign state, *by* the government of that state.

Based on your comment, I can safely assume that you would have been in favour of US action against Iraq after it had used CW against the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war? Even though the US assisted Iraq in *using* those CW by providing them with intelligence information, such as targeting information, among other things?

No doubt you also would have welcomed international intervention against the US for its use of Radiological weapons [a form of WMD] i.e. depleted Uranium munitions, in its war in Iraq?

How about the signatories to the Land mine ban treaty - can they use "humanitarian" and/or "accepted norms" or "international treaties" as reasons to intervene against the US whenever the US deploys land mines?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
becky bradshaw
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth
21 hours ago ( 8:53 AM)
As far as precedent, there are a few.  For example when India (1971) secured the independence of Bangladesh, or when Tanzania invaded Uganda to save them from their tyrant, Idi Amin.  Another would be Vietnam, when they rid Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge. 

You compromise your credibility when you equate the depleted Uranium armor with a radiological weapon.  No one of significant credibility would make such a claim.
calfacon
Liberty Loving, Liberal
11:24 AM on 09/02/2013
Thank you for stating this so clearly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
countthevote
09:39 AM on 09/02/2013
You claim:

"But the principle of humanitarian intervention and R2P are not yet established law, "

BUT:

According to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, civilians and all persons not taking part in combat may under no circumstances be the object of attack and must be spared and protected.

...The lack of protection of the population in armed conflicts and other situations of violence today is not due to the inadequacy of the legal framework laid down by international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL). The main cause, unfortunately, resides in the lack of respect shown by weapon bearers and their political operatives for these fundamental rules.

Protection of the civilian population
http://www.icrc.org/eng/what-we-do/protecting-civilians/overview-protection-civilian-population.htm

The way I read it, it IS illegal in International law for a Country to murder it's own people!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mantra
08:57 PM on 09/01/2013
Great article...!!! It is really frustrating to see once again the mainstream media doing their usual job of misleading the public, repeating ad nauseam unproven claims, and matter-of-factly dismissing international law. Anybody following the news from bona fide international media sources knows how much information is being hidden from the American public. We have gotten to the point where some people posting here question the description of preemptive, unprovoked military strikes as an act of war. Some do not find it morally objectionable to kill civilians to "send a message" to the country being targeted or to other countries, just so they "get the message", while others justify bombing another country which did not attack us, so our president doesn't lose "credibility" and shows the world he "means business". It's surreal.
08:55 PM on 09/01/2013
"A use of military force for the primary purpose of defending American "credibility," in which many innocent people will be killed, and in which the normative power of the international legal order will again be undermined, is not only unlawful, but is also illegitimate and unjust."

Well cry me a river.

I don't care a fig about international "law." International "law" is fine for trade disputes and the like. In matters of war and peace, nations act in accordance with their own sovereign interests. We need to figure out what our interests require be done here, and then do it.
08:04 PM on 09/01/2013
Great post. The first half is similar to a comment I wrote a few days ago, which is always nice... even if I was repeating what others have said. These matters can't be repeated often enough.

Obama ignoring international law may not raise the hackles of Dem and Repub interventionists, but the rest of us and the rest of the world needs to hammer him on it until the pro-war segment of the corporate media has no choice but to cover the story.

Journalists failing to even ask questions about the legality is not acceptable.

Rule of law is so often being used to sell catastrophic agendas, it is immoral for it to be ignored when it comes to Syria.
07:33 PM on 09/01/2013
Great article, hopefully it makes it's way around the White House.
07:10 PM on 09/01/2013
Brilliant argument, unequivocally accurate in all aspects. Too bad the closed minds in our congress are only persuaded by money, not logic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justmehla
06:09 PM on 09/01/2013
So how many of whoever it is take to recognize another group as the 'true representatives' of the Syrian people? Then they join the club and ask for help in staying alive? Not that I don't agree with what you say? Can Assad kill all but seventy 8 Syrians, under International Law??
12:47 PM on 09/01/2013
Actually the war in Syria is a good thing for us. As long as they are busy killing each other they will be too busy to kill us. To me the best souloution would be to give them both bigger bombs and and see who wins! Either way we win Where we would lose is trying to interfere in a religious civil war! This is a conflict between Shites and Sunni"s and we have no business in grtting involved in it. The Idea that we have a responsibility to protect the world is folly. 911 proved that we can't even protect ourselves. What we can do is cripple our next generation with killed amd maimed young soldiers! In 1918 the war to end all wars ended! Since then we hav fought eight major militayr actions and a dozen minor one's We don't need one more maimed Veteran. If you think I am a peace nic it is because I am a 100% disabled veteran of three of those wars. Be at peace!!
12:12 PM on 09/01/2013
What does it say about picking one side and training troops and arming them to join that side and fight on that side,So any bombing of Syria is not for using gas as bad as that is but to defeat the Syrian people and lead our trained Sunii Islamic troops to a Victory
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
11:16 AM on 09/01/2013
Don't forget that there is a workaround for a politically deadlocked Security Council.