What are the consequences of the use of force against Syria without a sanctioned UNSC mandate?
Several countries of the NATO alliance have expressed the will to pursue a military strike against Syria even without a mandate by the UN. [1] Which international laws would such action violate?
There are 3 basic philosophical elements to a “just war”: 1. A just cause. 2. carried out by proper authority. 3. the final objective must always be peace. [2]
1. We may recall, the western polemics in which it was made clear that the West does not support any of the groups within the Syrian civil war. Furthermore, any cause of bombing military and civil objects on Syrian ground would not meet a humanitarian cause- more civilians would die.
Therefore, it would be very hard to find any “Just cause.” What would the bombing achieve except for anty-humanitarian consequences?
2. The use of force is strictly prohibited by art (2(4)) of the UN charter. ONLY the UN security council may authorize the use of force in accordance with art 39 of the charter.
As we are not talking here about self defence, any act of the use of force without UNSC permission may be considered illegal and the leadership carrying out such an act may be put to trial.
Would the nations of the Western states want to participate in the criminal acts of their leadership?
3. Then again, we had Yugoslavian wars, where a NATO intervention occurred illegally and yet no legal consequences followed for the invading countries?
What is the crucial difference between Yugoslavia and Syria today?
The main objective of the bombings of Serbia was (officially) to promote peace in the region. By “neutralizing” the Serb military, NATO could “safely” divide the region and allow to install “liberal democratic” governments.
In Syria, however, there is NO FINAL OBJECTIVE OF PEACE. There is no final objective at all!
As it seems, this is a simple act of vengeance, without any plans for peace or security. Such an act may be considered as an act of aggression towards another sovereign state. It is no different from the brutalities of the NAZI regime during WW2- violence purely “because they could”.
Lately we have witnessed a number of NATO interventions. Apart from the question of legality, not in a single case peace and security could be achieved after a western intervention. Bosnia is a failed state. Kosovo is undecieded, held together by a KFOR force. Iraq is in a state of war and anarchy, just as Libya and Afghanistan.
None of the invaded states achieved peace after invasion.
Bearing the recent cases, it might become evident that members of the NATO alliance are unable to achieve the final objective of peace and therefore should not attempt to do so in any other future states.
The only chances for the Syrian people to survive through the impending intervention is if Western leadership would feel threatened by possible persecution for their criminal acts and with that refrain from attacking a foreign state. If a leader tempts to commit a crime then the people are permitted to remove such corrupt leader. Will we once again be too late? I wonder when a question of impeachment, parliamentary enquires and tribunals will be posed?
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/us2c-allies-gearing-up-for-probable-strike-on-syria/4917286
[2] Mohammad Taghi Karoubi, “Just or Unjust war?: international law and the use of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th century” Ashgate Publishing LTD, 2004 p.50: Dating to the Roman Ius ad Bellum and the revival in the forming of the Western statehood.
There are 3 basic philosophical elements to a “just war”: 1. A just cause. 2. carried out by proper authority. 3. the final objective must always be peace. [2]
1. We may recall, the western polemics in which it was made clear that the West does not support any of the groups within the Syrian civil war. Furthermore, any cause of bombing military and civil objects on Syrian ground would not meet a humanitarian cause- more civilians would die.
Therefore, it would be very hard to find any “Just cause.” What would the bombing achieve except for anty-humanitarian consequences?
2. The use of force is strictly prohibited by art (2(4)) of the UN charter. ONLY the UN security council may authorize the use of force in accordance with art 39 of the charter.
As we are not talking here about self defence, any act of the use of force without UNSC permission may be considered illegal and the leadership carrying out such an act may be put to trial.
Would the nations of the Western states want to participate in the criminal acts of their leadership?
3. Then again, we had Yugoslavian wars, where a NATO intervention occurred illegally and yet no legal consequences followed for the invading countries?
What is the crucial difference between Yugoslavia and Syria today?
The main objective of the bombings of Serbia was (officially) to promote peace in the region. By “neutralizing” the Serb military, NATO could “safely” divide the region and allow to install “liberal democratic” governments.
In Syria, however, there is NO FINAL OBJECTIVE OF PEACE. There is no final objective at all!
As it seems, this is a simple act of vengeance, without any plans for peace or security. Such an act may be considered as an act of aggression towards another sovereign state. It is no different from the brutalities of the NAZI regime during WW2- violence purely “because they could”.
Lately we have witnessed a number of NATO interventions. Apart from the question of legality, not in a single case peace and security could be achieved after a western intervention. Bosnia is a failed state. Kosovo is undecieded, held together by a KFOR force. Iraq is in a state of war and anarchy, just as Libya and Afghanistan.
None of the invaded states achieved peace after invasion.
Bearing the recent cases, it might become evident that members of the NATO alliance are unable to achieve the final objective of peace and therefore should not attempt to do so in any other future states.
The only chances for the Syrian people to survive through the impending intervention is if Western leadership would feel threatened by possible persecution for their criminal acts and with that refrain from attacking a foreign state. If a leader tempts to commit a crime then the people are permitted to remove such corrupt leader. Will we once again be too late? I wonder when a question of impeachment, parliamentary enquires and tribunals will be posed?
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/us2c-allies-gearing-up-for-probable-strike-on-syria/4917286
[2] Mohammad Taghi Karoubi, “Just or Unjust war?: international law and the use of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th century” Ashgate Publishing LTD, 2004 p.50: Dating to the Roman Ius ad Bellum and the revival in the forming of the Western statehood.