Press "Enter" to skip to content

Fundamentally broken international laws couldn’t protect Syria from the US

Douma : In this photo provided by the Syrian Civil Defense group in Damascus suburbs known as the White Helmets, Civil Defense workers carry an injured man after government airstrikes hit Douma, near Damascus, Syria. (Photo: AP/PTI)Consider this shocking fact: Despite horrific images of yet another chemical weapons attack in Syria, the U. S.-led humanitarian intervention to protect civilians on April 13 was fundamentally illegal. Under current international law, President Trump lacks the authorization to launch a single missile to stop future attacks, even for the clear and just purpose of saving civilian lives.No matter how wise you consider this intervention, legal scholars generally agree that the United Nations Charter doesn’t allow the use of military force to prevent chemical weapons attacks — no matter how evil — without U. N. Security Council approval. This fact seems both morally wrong and harmful to the goals of opposing “rogue” regimes and protecting human rights.My research into the Syrian crisis highlights the fact that when it comes to protecting the innocent from atrocities, international law is fundamentally broken.Before the next horrific round of attacks on civilians begins – in Syria or elsewhere – it is important to improve the U. N.’s flawed legal framework for authorizing the use of force in response to chemical weapons attacks on civilians.But how? Rules from the past Let’s start by considering the process that’s in place today.The Conversation logo
Source: Business Standard