By: Patrick Wheat
As the world looks on, the United States Congress continues its debate on the subject of military intervention in Syria as a result of a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21, 2013. The allegation of the use of chemical weapons by the government of Syria has put the United States in a difficult position from a foreign policy standpoint. President Barak Obama issued a statement calling for military action due to the Syrian government crossing “a red line” that the international community could no longer ignore, claiming that America “recognizes that if the international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing how countries interact and how people are treated, that over time this world becomes less safe.” Using the chemical attack as the justification to engage military forces in Syria, President Obama’s attempts to create support in Congress have found allies in Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California). While a resolution approving military force still faces an uphill battle, with fewer than twelve other House Republicans supporting the President’s call to action, the support that exists has ensured for a real debate on the issue of Syria in the coming days.
With that being said, there is one question that should be asked before moving forward in Syria: “Is military intervention legal?” One of the most confusing aspects of modern politics is international law due in part to the issue of overlapping sovereignty between nations and organizations, the difficulty of multiple laws making any issue convoluted at best and the fact that many aspects of international law give little oversight as to enforcement and punishment for breaking these laws.
The use of chemical weapons was first prohibited for use in war in 1925 by the Geneva Convention, with the Chemical Weapons Convention outlawing all production, stockpile, and trade of such weapons being passed in 1993. Syria is one of four nations that have not signed the CWC, but they did sign the Geneva Convention in 1925. However, the Geneva Conventions prohibition of these weapons has not been enforced in the past, such as the lack of punishment for Egypt’s use of mustard gas in the Yemen War of 1963-1967. Iraq is another example of the failure to enforce the ban on chemical weapons, this time for their use during the Iran-Iraq War.
A second legal issue comes from the United Nations, whose charter only allows for one nation to attack another if the attacking state is acting in genuine self-defense, or if the action is approved by the passage of a Security Council resolution to this affect. Neither of these situations applies to the issue in Syria, as there has been no direct attack on the United States by Syria, and it is unlikely that the Security Council will approve military action due to China and Russia’s stanch opposition to any military intervention. So, without UN Security Council approval, the United States would be breaking the same laws as were broken during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The one of the main arguments for attacking the Syrian government stems from a humanitarian point of view, with many supporters of military intervention believing that the situation equates to a disaster that must be stopped in the name of human rights. While this moral argument is passionate, it unfortunately holds no legal ground, either through international law or through historical precedent. The closest example of a force intervening in a nation on human rights claims would be NATO’s bombing the nation of Kosovo in 1998 when that nation was in the middle of a civil war. The key difference between Kosovo and Syria was that the NATO bombings were ordered on security concerns of the surrounding NATO members, whereas military intervention in Syria is being argued solely on humanitarian grounds. The use of force on purely humanitarian grounds is so ill-defined in international law that this event could be used as the creation of a new customary norm of international relations, leading to mass military intervention in a variety of sovereign states on poorly defined grounds as a result.
The civil war in Syria is a tragedy with over 100,000 casualties, many of them civilians being reported. The next step in this conflict is now being decided by the United States, who will decide if the military of the world’s last superpower shall again intervene in a foreign nation. With the Syrian government making open statements indicating that they would be willing to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) if the United States would not engage in any military action, it remains to be seen if the United States will hold off and if the Syrian government is willing to follow through on its pledge to abide by the CWC. In addition, Russia recently offered to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile to prevent a United States military intervention. While the ultimate conclusion to this debate is unclear at this time, one thing is certain; the actions the United States takes next will determine the events of this country for decades to come. In making such decisions, it is to be hoped that the leaders in Washington consider the legal as well as moral arguments of what they set out to do.
