Was U.S.A justified in attacking Syria?A scholarly overview.

The nature and applicability of international law is always a subject of debate among international lawyers. This debate largely stems from its nature. Its applicability has been contested given the fact that there is no a world government that is central legitimate authority in the international system which police the behavior of states. However, international law strictly prohibits the intervention of a state in the domestic affairs of other states. In this regard, Article 2 of the UN Charter states that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.” Nevertheless, the UN Security Council has the right to intervene as it sees that there is a threat to international peace and security (Demeke, 2013). For a state to invade another sate it has to seek authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Under international law, there is a distinct way of looking at war that is the reasons to fight. Jus ad bellum (use of force) is the title given to the branch of law that defines the legitimate reasons a state may engage in war which under international law may give legal reasons for a state to invade another state. The essay will look at the legal reasons according to international law that will justify the invasion in Syria by United States.

Syria lies at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Lebanon and Israel on the west, Turkey on the north, Iraq on the east, and Jordan on the south. Entering the fifth year of the conflict, a lot of evidence points to the fact that the civil war in Syria will neither be settled politically nor decided militarily in the near future. Regime and rebels are locked in a battle for survival that does not permit any compromise. If the fighting continues or escalates further, the neighboring countries will also bear the brunt. Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and, to a growing degree, Egypt, are faced with an ever rising number of Syrian refugees whose accommodation and provision with food, shelter and health care turns out to be an enormous challenge for the recipient countries. Almost 200,000 Syrians have lost their lives in the escalating conflict between forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and those opposed to his rule (BBC News, 2014). Syria's bloody internal conflict has destroyed entire neighborhoods and forced more than nine million people from their homes (Ibid, 2014). Pro-democracy protests erupted in March 2011 in the southern city of Deraa after the arrest and torture of some teenagers who painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall. After security forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing several, more took to the streets. The unrest triggered nationwide protests demanding President Assad's resignation. The government's use of force to crush the dissent merely hardened the protesters' resolve. By July 2011, hundreds of thousands were taking to the streets across the country. Opposition supporters eventually began to take up arms, first to defend themselves and later to expel security forces from their local areas. Violence escalated and the country descended into civil war as rebel brigades were formed to battle government forces for control of cities, towns and the countryside. Fighting reached the capital Damascus and second city of Aleppo in 2012. The conflict is now more than just a battle between those for or against President Assad. It has acquired sectarian overtones, pitching the country's Sunni majority against the President's Shia Alawite sect, and drawn in neighboring countries and world powers. The rise of the jihadist groups, including Islamic State, has added a further dimension.

The US was a major political payer in the political panorama in Kosovo/Yugoslavia in the late 1990s (Demeke, 2013). Following the humanitarian crisis, mass killings and massive violation of human rights by Milosevic regime in 1990s, the “international community” decided to respond military to government’s brutality under the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention”. Indeed at the beginning of the conflict, the “international community” viewed the Kosovo crisis as an essentially domestic matter for Serbia to settle it through political and diplomatic means. Similarly, the majority of international actors have recognized the Syrian conflict as an internal matter at the beginning. The US was more effective in leading the effort to stop the increasing humanitarian disaster in Kosovo and bringing the conflicting parties into the negotiation table to achieve durable peace. Likewise, the Obama administration had set a red line for Damascus (use of chemical weapons) where the US will be forced to engage military.

Besides having authority from the United Nations Security Council, a country may invade another country on the principle of “Jus ad bellum”.These rules include self-defense, humanitarian intervention, peace keeping, collective security or “Jus cogens” which contains prohibitions on serious international law violations like genocide, torture, slavery, and crimes against humanity. As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In recent years, states have reached general consensus that they have a "Responsibility to Protect" populations from mass atrocities, and that when a government fails in this responsibility towards its own people, international action is appropriate. The US and its allies are trying to make military strikes legal and legitimate under the banner of “humanitarian intervention”.  As Washington clearly stated, the aim is not to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime or to support the coalition of opposition forces by directly involving into the civil war. Rather it focuses on destroying a number of command posts and regimes’ chemical weapons delivery facilities. The Syrian opposition claimed that the chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb on 21 August 2013, which was reported to have killed 1,429 civilians, including over 400 children, was carried out by the Syrian Government (Kaye, 2013).  The use of Mass Destructive Weapons (MDWs) or Atomic, Biological and Chemical (ABCs) weapons is strongly prohibited under customary international practices and moral judgments. Violation of high standard of international norms such as the use of chemical weapons against civilians has immediate legal consequences (Schmitt, 2013). Some states had been the victims of chemical weapons during World War I and World War II. For instance, Ethiopian was the victim of chemical weapons when the Fascist led Italian government used it against Ethiopian people in 1935. Yet, the international community failed to punish Italy knowing that it was a serious violation of international customary practices, other than condemning and releasing strong statement against its use. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.

The Protocol was signed at a conference which was convened in Geneva under the framework of the League of Nations in 1925 and entered into force in 1928. Later, the international community agreed to set a mechanism to deter the use of MDWs and signed the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1972 and 1993 respectively. More importantly, the CWC, in which Syria is one of the 6 signatory states, prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. For example, Article 1(1) of the CWC noted that “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone, to use chemical weapons, to engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons, and to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” According to the US government, the legality of their military intervention relies on the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and CWC in which Damascus is accused of violating the terms of the agreement. This is crime against humanity as stated by Blockmans, (2013). Based on the intelligence information, the US government presented to the international community, President Assad developed, produced and made all the necessary military preparation to use it against his own people by violating long standing international norms. As a result, the legal justification of US unilateral military action on Syria is part of enforcing the terms of the Geneva Convention.

According to Schmitt, (2013a) anticipatory self-defense, is the use of force by a state to repel an attacker before an actual attack has taken place, before the army of the enemy has crossed its border, and before the bombs of the enemy fall upon its territory can be a legal reason for the US to invade Syria.  "Anticipatory" is a term that "refers to the ability to foresee consequences of some future action and take measures aimed at checking or countering those consequences”. Obama and his allies should draw very strong lessons from the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States of America by al-Qaeda- an Islamic terrorist group that is threatening world peace.  A lot of Americans perished on this fateful day. The killing of 12 people in France recently by terrorists should alert and teach the United States of America and her allies that if terrorism is left unchecked it can destabilize the whole world. Look at what is happening in Nigeria for example, the monstrous actions of Boko Haram have plunged the Nation into a catastrophe.

Bashar al-Assad the President of Syria is not different from Gadhafi the former president of Libya who was a tyrant. Assad was re-elected Syria’s president in 2014 with 88.7% of the vote. Celebration shots fired by Assad supporters killed at least three people in Damascus as the results were announced and Assad did not take any action to punish the killers. The American Secretary of State John Kerry described the vote as a great zero and urged Assad allies Iran, Russia and Lebanon’s militant group Hezbollah to end the war. The United States department spokesperson Marie Harf observed that the election had internationally denied Syrians the right to vote which is against human rights. Hezbollah militants group which is Syria’s ally is seen by the West as a terrorist group that is causing instability in the Middle East by trying to overrun America’s best ally Israel. The fact that election observers were  from North Korea, Iran and Russia countries allied to Assad regime makes it clear that Assad is a tyrant because the afore mentioned countries leaders are  also dictators. The three countries supported Syrian elections that were held in pools of blood against the international law of human rights.

The proclamation of the “Islamic Sate” in Eastern Syria by ISIS has large implications for every country in the Middle East and the West.  ISIS established itself as a force in Northern Syria in May 2013. ISIS was responsible for the beheading of two American citizens and has captured a swath of territory in northern parts of Syria. ISIS forces those in the areas it controls to live according to its interpretation of Sunni Islam and Sharia law. It is against Shia Muslims, Christians, Yazids and anyone else who won’t submit. ISIS has released dozens of videos parading its ill treatment of civilians, dispelling any possibility that it is the blameless victim of Western propaganda (Blanchard, 2014). ISIS claims to speak for all Muslims and to command their allegiance. ISIS leaders have threatened America and her allies.

Obama and his allies should isolate, contain and quarantine ISIS and Assad by invading Syria where ISIS has proclaimed an Islamic State while Assad continues to butcher his people and forcing thousands Syrians into exile as refugees. Obama should reject the murders, kidnapping and violence against innocent people, destruction of schools and sacred places and forced conversions by ISIS in the name of Islam. ISIS and Assad’s atrocities, massacres and extrajudicial punishments should be stopped and destroyed by the United States and her allies. ISIS has sought to exclude Syrian women and girls from public life. Women have been killed, often by stoning, for unapproved contact with the opposite sex. ISIS regulations dictate what women must wear, with whom they may socialize, and where they may work. Distressing accounts were collected of forced marriages of girls as young as 13 to ISIS fighters. Children have also been the victims, perpetrators and witnesses of ISIS executions (Wedeman, 2014). The armed group employs education as a tool of indoctrination, aiming propaganda at children to foster a new generation of recruits. As an armed group bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, ISIS has violated its obligations toward civilians, amounting to war crimes. In areas where ISIS has established effective control, ISIS has systematically denied basic human rights and freedoms and in the context of its attack against the civilian population, has perpetrated crimes against humanity. Invasion of Syria by an allied force led by the United States is a necessary counter terrorism measure to prevent ISIS from overrunning Syria and becoming a future threat to the United States and her allies. Where there is evidence that crimes that affect humanity such as terrorism, child soldiering are committed under the preemptory norms of jus cogens it gives the legal right to react by a state such as the US in Syria as these crimes have been committed (Hassan, 2015).

Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force nevertheless, if the Syrian opposition clearly asks for America’s help, if the rest of the Arab world supports such a military intervention, and if America's European allies prove ready to join in and indeed lead such an effort, the United States should contribute those military assets which only it can provide under the legal reason of collective security . Forces from the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE launched airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and affiliates of al-Qaeda, beginning in September 2014, as part of a multinational force against Islamist extremist militant groups (The Guardian,2014). Rescue mission following the abduction of a number of foreigners in Syria, on July 4, 2014, the U.S. carried out an operation to rescue foreign hostages being held by ISIL. U.S. airstrikes were conducted against an ISIL military base known as the "Osama bin Laden Camp" while at the same time, two dozen special operations members parachuted from helicopters near an ISIS building for high-valued prisoners. No prisoners were found in the building and the special operations members were quickly engaged by ISIL forces dispatched from Ar-Raqqah, and a three-hour firefight ensued. Eventually, U.S. forces concluded that the hostages were no longer at the site and abandoned the rescue attempt.

The Syrian government is under the obligation to secure its population from crimes against humanity committed on its territory. Clearly, it is unable to do so, having lost control over areas occupied by IS. Hence, international action might be taken under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to liberate the populations concerned from the grip of that movement (Koh, 2013). However, the increasing emphasis on the rights of peoples and populations over the abstract doctrine of sovereignty makes it possible to justify forcible action in extreme circumstances of humanitarian need. The United States remains committed to helping the innocent children, women, and men affected by the ongoing conflict in Syria. Total U.S. humanitarian assistance since the start of the conflict in March 2011 is now more than $3 billion (USAID, 2014). The United States remains the single-largest donor of humanitarian aid for those affected by Syria crisis, which has become the biggest humanitarian emergency of the era. For three years, the children of Syria have experienced the trauma of war. They have had their lives upended, often losing their homes, family members, and friends. 5 million children are affected by this crisis. That’s as if children from the 40 largest school districts in the United States had been affected by violence, hunger, or disease. Of those, 1.2 million have been forced to flee the country. Neighboring nations and host communities are struggling to absorb the influx of refugees, often causing a direct impact on their youngest citizens. Nearly 3 million Syrian children are out of school most for two years now and growing increasingly vulnerable with each classroom destroyed, Syria and the region cannot afford to lose a generation of children to hopelessness, especially when it is children who can help drive forward a future of peace (Ibid,2014). This is why the United States government supports the No Lost Generation initiative. No Lost Generation is an initiative by governments, the United Nations, and international and non-governmental organizations to address the immediate and long-term impacts of the Syria crisis on a generation of children and youth in Syria and the Near East region. It aims to expand access to education and provide psychosocial support to the region's children, strengthen child protection, boost social cohesion and promote peacebuilding to restore hope to millions of Syrian children who fear their future is slipping away. The U.S. government is supporting the No Lost Generation Initiative with programming in all these sectors

In conclusion the US-led military intervention has sufficient legal justification and is making a direct contribution to the protection of populations in Syria from genocide and mass atrocities. Whether it will prove to be too little, too late remains to be seen, but the fate of many depends on the international community’s resolve in dealing with the ISIS threat.

Reference List

BBC News. (2014) Syria: The story of the conflict, achieved at http://bbcnews.com.news (accessed on 8 December 2014).

Blanchard, C., M. (2014) Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and US Response, achieved at http://www.crs.org, (accessed on 17 September, 2014).

Blockmans, S. (2013) Syria and the red lines of International law, achieved at http://wwwceps.eu (accessed on 4 September 2013).

Demeke, A., M. (2013) Bombing of Syria: Legality and cost of military intervention, achieved at http://aigaforum.com,(accessed on 5 September 2013).

The Guardian. (2014) Syria offers to help fight ISIS but warns against unilateral air strikes, achieved at http://www.theguardian.com,(accessed on 26 August 2014).

Kaye, D. (2013) the legal consequences of illegal wars, achieved at http://www.foreignaffairs.com,(accessed on 29 August 2013).

Koh, H, .H. (2013) Syria and the law of Humanitarian Intervention (Part II: International law and the way forward), achieved at http://www.justsecurity.org/1506/koh-syria-part2 ,(accessed on 2 October 2013).

Schmitt, M., N. (2013) The Syrian Intervention: Assessing the possible International law justifications, International law studies, 89.

USAID. (2014) No lost generation, achieved at http://www.usaid.gov, (accessed on 12 March 2014).

Wedeman, B. (2014) CNN Exclusive: Videos show brutality of radical group ISIS in Syria, achieved at http://www.edition.cnn.com, (accessed on 17 February 2014).