Syria and the United States of America

Syria and the United States of America are both sovereign countries and UN members. As a result, both countries are bound by international law. According to international law, a country's sovereignty must be respected, and any act of provocation to war by one country against another should be reviewed by the United Nations Security Council, and any self-defense mechanism should result in a low number of victims. The United Nations Charter is the bedrock of international law (Koskenniemi 213). According to Article 51 of the UN charter, a state can undertake appropriate measures to protect itself against an imminent attack provided that the actions that they take are commensurate with the threats posed (Arend and Robert 79). The United Nations Security Council comprises of the United States of America, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom. The crisis in Syria has been noted as being driven by the actions of the United States and the United Kingdom, all members of the Security Council, against the wish of Russia, also a member of the Security Council. Investigating the legality of the use of force by the United States in Syria is of critical importance to political science owing to the likely repercussions that such action may have on global security. Under the international law, a country may advance an attack against another country where there is an open provocation of peace, through imminent attack or military attack, consent by the victim country for another state to intervene and the resolution by the United Nations Security Council (Deeks 13). Syria is a country that is facing complexities owing to the struggle of recognizing the legitimacy of Assad regime, diplomatic conflicts between US and Russia over the Syrian crisis and the influx of terrorist groups such as ISIS in the country. The resolutions often tend to be weightier than any other action. The attack by the United States of America against Syria that was driven by the Chemical attack by the Assad regime to Syrian town and its region was unlawful following the statutes of the international law.

Legality of the United States actions

The 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol abhors the use of chemical weapons in wars. Countries or groups that are found culpable of using chemical weapons are bound to be recognized as having violated human rights against the citizens or organizations that they have attacked. However, the 1925 Geneva Protocol does not offer the use of armed attack against a sovereign country as retaliation for the chemical attack. Therefore, the legality of using force has to be made within the provision of article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations Charter, under article 2(4) asserts that no country should use force against the political independence or territorial integrity of another country. Article 2(4) is the legal provision that was violated by the United States in its attack against the Assad regime. The statutory exception to the referred article under the international law includes self-defense and having authorization from the United Nations Security Council. When the United States was conducting the attack, Russia and China had a veto against the proposal, and the United Nations Security Council had not issued an approval for the offense to be carried out. Self-defense under the international law can only be approved where a country is threatened to be attacked or where there is an armed attack. In the circumstances of the case, Syria had not threatened to attack the United States, nor did they forge an armed attack against the United States of America.

According to Article VI of the constitution of the United States of America, the treaties to which the United States signs and enters are part of the domestic law and are regarded as part of the Supreme Law of the country. Therefore, there tends to be an obligation of the United States to live up to the terms of the treaties to which it enters. The United Nations charter is a treaty whose provision constitutes legal provision that the United States has to honor. During the time in which the United States was advancing an attack against Syria, Congress had not exercised its powers in enforcing the later-in-time rule which would have it exonerated the country from the obligations of the international law.

About the laws of the United States, the president of the United States is also the commander in chief of the defense forces. However, Congress serves the role of laying checks and balances to the role of the President as the commander in chief, to ensure that he or she does not act unilaterally. As such, Congress has the right of granting the President an approval to attack another country, a role that was not played when the President of the United States orders a missile attack against Syria.

Before the attack, the United States was already in breach of the international law by providing soldiers through their allies to act as combatants against the Assad regime. Since the United States is an uninvited state actor in the Syrian conflict, their participation, and engagement in legally interpreted as meddling in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country. The US breaking the law before their attack against the very nation is an act of bullying and does not justify in any way why they should continue in any legal action again the human rights abuses by the Assad regime.

The use of chemical attack against the citizens of a country is a gross violation of human rights that would require the intervention of the international community (Buergenthal et al 28). However, such a response could only be made valid after a fact-finding mission had been instituted and findings made on the extent to which human rights have been violated. During the time at which the United States advanced an attack against Syria, there was an investigation that was being carried out by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Therefore, the action of US against Syria as at the time when the investigation was being carried undermined the process of the inquiry by the organization. Thus, there is no reputable source of information that could be tabled to the United Nations Security Council justifying the use of chemical weapons against civilians to warrant the involvement of the international community (Krishnan 141). Syria is a country that has faced conflict in many years owing to the proliferation of terrorist groups in the country. Though the United States has its reservations against the Assad regime, the Assad government is the legally recognized government based on the Syrian domestic laws. The region where the United States alleges that the Syrian government used chemical weapons is known to be under the control of Al-Nusra Front, a terrorist group that has been labeled so by the United Nations and the United States of America (Pita and Juan 395).

The statement that has been issued by the United States that outlines why they needed to carry out the attack does not offer the legal justification of using 59 missiles (Daugirdas and Julian 782). Additionally, there is little evidence that all the rockets that were advanced by the United States to Syria had hit the target that was pinpointed by the US. Therefore, where even one missile fails to beat the targeted location, loss of lives of the civilians could be imminent and such would mean that the United States exacerbated the human rights violations that were being advanced in the country.

In the case and context under which the United States attacked Syria, Syria has the right to act in self-defense by advancing an attack against Damascus or the United States territorial boundaries (Lloyd and Theodore 1). Additionally, any other member states of the United States have the legal right to be in support of any proposal by Syria to attack the United States as an act of self-defense. As such, the legal consequences that the United States may need to bear are more severe compared to their outright provocation of Syria.

According to the United Nations Charter, any country that has been found to have acted in contravention to the provisions of article 2(4) need to make an assurance that they will not engage in any similar act in the future (Williamson 149). Additionally, there is need to offer support that could lead to the repair of the states that has been attacked, in this case, Syria. However, while there is no any additional attack that has been advanced by the United States against Syria, there are still threats that more could be done against the Assad regime where the US is satisfied that chemical attacks and human rights violations are always being carried out in the country. Therefore, the United States acts knowing what the provisions of the international law and acts unilaterally without the involvement of the United Nations.

Legally, the decision by Russia to call upon the United Nations Security Council and the other member states of the UN to condemn the illegal action of the US is in consistency with the international law (Von Glahn and James 172). However, the diplomatic spat between the two countries over the last decade would undermine the objectivity of the actions by Russia against the US. The international law further provides that no member of the United Nations needs to recognize any situation that has been realized through the use of force contrary to the international law (Blanchard, Carla and Mary 15). Therefore, the statement that has been issued by the United Kingdom recognizing the situation amounts to a breach of the international law.

Legality of Actions of the United Kingdom

The decision by the United Kingdom is majorly driven by the UN Security Council Resolution 2249 that called for the member states of the United Nations to enforce necessary measures that are all in tandem with the international law to fight against terrorist groups. The terrorist groups that are named in the resolution include Al-Nusrah Front, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, the decision by the UK to support the activities of the UK is based on the principle of collective self-defense owing to the request by Iraq for military help to fight the ISIS terrorist group that undermined the rule of law in Syria and Iraq. Under the internal law, states have the power and mandate to move into the country and fight the terrorist group that has been named. However, the challenge that such would have is when there is a dispute over the legitimate government in such country. Therefore, the argument to consent as the valid reason for their entry into the country, to justify their legality under article 2(4) is questioned in the next paragraph.

Article 2(4) expounds on the use of force with the United Nations having the discrete powers to authorize the member states to take necessary measures in averting a possible breach of peace. The action of the United Nations is premised on chapter VII of the charter. Therefore, the evaluation of the legality of acts of UK in the context of attack of Syrian by the United States forces is pegged on the critical analysis of the significance of resolution 2249 on ISIS/Daesh.

Resolution 2249 asserts that ISIS/ISIL is a terrorist group that poses a threat to international stability and international peace. The decision grants the members of the United Nations that can exterminate the terrorist groups to do so provided that their actions are guided by the internal law on refugee and the United Nations charter. Additional groups that are mentioned to be part of the terrorist organization include ANF and Al-Qaeda with the scope of such operations being in Iraq and Syria. In the resolution, there is no wording “decides.” Therefore, the decision does not issue a directive to counties to send their troops to Syria and aid attack but seems to notify them on the human rights abuses that are likely to result in the country and further making the member countries ready for any directive by the United Nations Security Council.

The terms “calls on member states” and “decides” have differential meanings. Therefore, the UK ought to have consulted with the United Nations with the intent of winning their approval before wading into the issue of a chemical attack. Where there is no proof of validation for the UK to be engaged in the issue of attack, the country is regarded as having breached the provision of the internal law and undermining the sovereignty of Syria. However, the choice of wording that is often used by the United Nations Security Council tends to be confusing to many and can be seen as being a coded message, meaning, authorization to use force. The wording “all necessary measures” can also be referenced from the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2213 (2015) regarding the conflict in Libya, where governments, including US and NATO allies, gained entry into the country under the disguise of fighting the existent terrorist groups.

The choice of wording that is used in the resolutions often leaves states to interpret what they mean with some using such loophole to justify their legal actions while some are having a reserve and seeking an interpretation from the International Court of Justice. Importantly, there is need to for the resolutions to have the direct and proper wording of what they mean for the countries that undertake to enforce such decisions. As such, the UK acted illegally for not seeking the permission of the security council.

The illegality that is committed by the United Kingdom is the infringement of the principle of non-intervention. The UK seemed to aid the opposition in Syria to undermine the Assad regime under the disguise of fighting the terrorist groups in the country.

According to the statement that has been issued by the United Kingdom, it seems to have a resolution from the United Nations Security Council, which, if blocked and not successful would call upon it to deter and disrupt further use chemical weapons. While the UK is provoking an unimportant point, there seems to be a pre-determined opinion by the UK to get into Syria whether the resolution is granted or not. As such, the UK is bullying its way in the quest to gain entry into the country with the sole intent of fighting the Assad regime. The chemical attacks seem to be a triggering issue that is leading the United Kingdom to engage in the duel. The further reference that is made to the use of urgent relief in alleviating a humanitarian crisis that could result has the primary intent of offering a leeway for the UK to get into Syria (Simons and Dmitry 88). Therefore, the action of the UK cannot be deemed as being legal owing to their pre-determined opinion of getting into Syria.

The actions by the United Kingdom are only legally premised on the need for collective self-defense on behalf of Iraq against ISIS. However, according to the statement that is under scrutiny, the report by the UK does not mention Iraq. Therefore, the justification that the UK has for the statement that they have issued is only in line with that issued by the United States.

Conclusion

Concisely, both the United Kingdom and the United States have the position of seeking entry into Syria with the intent of stamping their role within the country as being against the Assad regime. The military strikes by the United States targeted the Assad military with the political intention of undermining his rule with the United Kingdom advancing their role in the issue under the disguise of responding to a humanitarian crisis. Objectively, one needs to realize that the United States plays an active in exacerbating the political turmoil that is existent in Syria owing to their inability to recognize the legitimate government in the country.

However, there are also legal provisions that ted to justify the positions of the United States and the United Kingdom. First, the two countries have been requested by Iraq, on consent, to help them fight ISIS and ISIL. Second, the United Nations has called upon the internal community to take all necessary measures to deal with ISIS that has been branded as an international terrorist organization that is undermining global peace. The legal grounds that the United Kingdom and the United States need to act based on article 2(4) of the United Nations charter. Therefore, the ongoing efforts by both UK and US to fight ISIS are justified. However, since there is no approval by the United Nations Security Council that grants them the right to attack the country, their adverse actions that fuels the Syrian conflict is deemed as being illegal.



Works Cited

Arend, Anthony Clark, and Robert J. Beck. International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm. Routledge, 2014.

Blanchard, Christopher M., Carla E. Humud, and Mary Beth D. Nikitin. "Armed conflict in Syria: Overview and US response." LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2014.

Buergenthal, Thomas, et al. International human rights in a nutshell. West Academic, 2017.

Daugirdas, Kristina, and Julian Davis Mortenson. "United States strikes syrian government airbase in response to chemical weapons attacks by syrian forces; two additional strikes on syrian government forces justified by defense of troops rationale." American Journal of International Law 111.3 (2017): 781-787.

Deeks, Ashley. "Consent to the use of force and international law supremacy." (2013).

Koskenniemi, Matti. "Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law: Report of the study group of the international law commission." (2014).

Krishnan, S. "The Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons Against the Syrian People: Does It Justify Forceful Intervention?." Jadavpur Journal of International Relations 21.2 (2017): 138-159.

Lloyd, Richard, and Theodore A. Postol. "Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013." (2014).

Pita, René, and Juan Domingo. "The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict." Toxics 2.3 (2014): 391-402.

Simons, Greg, and Dmitry Strovsky. "Geopolitical Interests and Information War: US and Russian Reaction to Russia’s Proposal on the Syrian Chemical Weapons Issue." Tamkang Journal of International Affairs (2016).

Von Glahn, Gerhard, and James Larry Taulbee. Law among nations: an introduction to public international law. Routledge, 2015.

Williamson, Myra. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Routledge, 2016.