8 September 2013
The New York Times reports that over the past decades, Syria amassed stockpiles of chemical weapons with the help from the Soviet Union, China, Czechoslovakia and Iran, as well as Western European and American suppliers.
Source: The New York Times | With the World Watching, Syria Amassed Nerve Gas
2 September 2013
Cross posted on Opinio Juris
States that have decided to potentially engage in military strikes against Syria, or to support such strikes, face a difficult choice between two options: do they operate outside the international legal framework when they act, or do they use the strikes as part of an attempt to reconstruct the law on the use of force?
There is no doubt that in the present situation, military strikes against Syria would be in violation of international law as it has been understood since 1945. In situations as we face now, in the absence of a Security Council mandate, international law allows no unilateral use of force. Building a coalition outside the United Nations does not help. Qualifying strikes as punishment does not help either. (more…)
29 August 2013
The BBC reported that the United Kingdom is going to present a resolution to the UN Security Council that would authorise ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians’ in Syria. Foreign Policy reported that the British move, unlikely to win support in the Security Council, is a diplomatic move intended to define the coalition of states that would be willing to strike against Syria.
The move comes after NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters that those responsible for chemical weapons use must be held accountable and that NATO would keep the Syrian situation under close review. According to the NYT, the United States is considering a range of actions against Syria, including missile strikes, designed to ‘deter and degrade’ the ability of the Assad regime to use chemical weapons.
Source: BBC | Syria crisis: UK puts forward UN proposal
Source: Foreign Policy | Morning Brief: UK Goes to Security Council for Syria Resolution
Source: The New York Times | Obama Weighs ‘Limited’ Strikes Against Syrian Forces
Source: Al Jazeera | NATO vows to 'answer' alleged Syria attack
23 August 2013
The French foreign minister Laurent Fabius warned Syria over a reaction of force from the international community if the Assad regime is proven to have used chemical weapons.
Fabius was reported saying the reaction could take any form of force, but ruled out the deployment of foreign ground troops, thereby suggesting the possibility of Western air strikes. The warning comes after the UN Security Council expressed strong concerns over the alleged use of lethal toxin in the attack on the outskirts of Damascus on 21 August, but failed to reach agreement on the best response.
Source: The Guardian | France warns Syria of forceful response over chemical weapon claims
Source: Al Jazeera | France warns Syria of forceful response
13 August 2013
The UN Secretary-General published his fifth report on the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) entitled ‘Responsibility to protect: State responsibility and prevention’. The term state responsibility refers to primary legal and moral obligations, including both national efforts and international efforts to assist other states.
The report offers an overview of risk factors and considers how states can increase their capacity to prevent by offering different policy options, such as the establishment of partnerships for prevention. In the conclusion, the Secretary-General refers to the ‘collective failure to prevent atrocity crimes in the Syrian Arab Republic’ and the moral burden this places on the UN and member states, ‘in particular those who have primary responsibility for international peace and security’.