Legality of Intervention in Syria in Response to Chemical Weapon Attacks
By Kenneth Anderson
Introduction
By Kenneth Anderson
Introduction
The increasing conviction that the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has used chemical weapons in an attack with many civilian casualties raises the question: what military response may the outside world legally take without the authority of the UN Security Council?
International law questions are not the only ones that matter to the decision to intervene militarily, of course. Whether a proposed course of action is legal has to stand alongside other essential questions. Is the proposed mission practical and prudent? And whether a proposed course of action in a crisis is, strictly speaking, legal or not under existing international law might not settle matters for some important international actors. For these governments, legal scholars, international NGOs and human rights advocates, even something that is formally not legal might, under circumstances of humanitarian crisis, emergency, and necessity, still be seen as justified and right, irrespective of what international law has to say about it. However, international law is always vital to the discussion, especially in a moment of grave crisis marked by significant political disagreement among states and deadlocked diplomacy in the UN Security Council.
To the surprise of many, international law does not provide clear-cut answers. The basic propositions that would justify armed intervention under international law are sharply contested by states through their governments and foreign ministries, international organizations and their diplomats and lawyers, and independent experts such as professors of international law.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario