Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[ikalugin]

All this talk about legal rights is nonsense.

I would argue that technically you are wrong and that international law applicable to a country is determined by UN charter (ie binding UNSC resolutions) and the binding agreements that it sighned and ratified.

But yes, major powers disregard said law when it doesnt suit them or apply it selectively. For example the Kosovo precedent was used in Crimea. The cause for the outrage is not that the international law is disregarded, but that it is disregarded by the wrong powers.

[Rockin Robbins]

The UN is a bunch of poseurs claiming powers they don't have. They are parasites living off those countries foolish enough to pay for their false claims of sovereignty.

In fact, UN law is not law. The UN is not some morally superior mother hen to all the childish states whose impulses must be controlled. It is morally reprehensible. It is impotent. It is a knowing fraud on the world, which would be better off without it.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

It may make it, arguably, moral but it does not make it legal, as there is no legal structure to support it.

If there is - present it here please.

here you go:

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P or RtoP) is a global political commitment which was endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.[1][2]

The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights violations.[3][4][5] The principle is based on a respect for the norms and principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and armed conflict.[6][7]

The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence. The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the Responsibility to Protect rests solely with United Nations Security Council and is considered a measure of last resort.[8] The United Nations Secretary-General has published annual reports on the Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures available to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity crimes.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the principle by various actors in the context of country-specific situations, such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, among other cases and for example.[17][18][19][20][21][22] It has also been argued[by whom?] that commensurate to the responsibility to protect, international law ought also recognize a right for populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect themselves against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a massive scale.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respon...y_intervention

As to security council approval, the language in UN Resolution 2254 may be sufficiently wide to justify the strike

13. Demands that all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians and civilian objects as such, including attacks against medical facilities and personnel, and any indiscriminate use of weapons, including through shelling and aerial bombardment, welcomes the commitment by the ISSG to press the parties in this regard, and further demands that all parties immediately comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law as applicable;

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2254.pdf

[ikalugin]

 

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

here you go:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respon...y_intervention

As to security council approval, the language in UN Resolution 2254 may be sufficiently wide to justify the strike



http://www.securitycouncilreport.org...s_res_2254.pdf

Neither of those provide legal basis.

The general assembly's documents do not provide the legal basis for the simple reason of the GA not having the right to authorise military action.

The UNSC resolution you cite does not authorise military action. The reason why it does not authorise military action of any kind is simple - authorisation to create a no-fly-zone over Lybia (a military action) was abused to conduct A-G airstrikes (with illegal ground operations by special forces, but noone cares about those) and so we torpedo any resolution that could provide justification to an armed intervention.

[August]

John Kerry in 2014:

"Our deal has resulted in Syria purging 100% of its chemical weapons"


Obama administration officials now: "Oh we always knew he still had chemical weapons"


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ob...rticle/2619808

[mapuc]

Then we have this

The Pentagon is looking for any evidence that the Russian government knew about or was complicit in the attack in Idlib province that killed at least 80 people and injured dozens more, a senior US defense official said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/wo...-trump-russia/

If Russia was aware or was a part of this attack, what can we do about it ? Take it to the UN and what can they do ?

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

 

Neither of those provide legal basis.

The general assembly's documents do not provide the legal basis for the simple reason of the GA not having the right to authorise military action.

The UNSC resolution you cite does not authorise military action. The reason why it does not authorise military action of any kind is simple - authorisation to create a no-fly-zone over Lybia (a military action) was abused to conduct A-G airstrikes (with illegal ground operations by special forces, but noone cares about those) and so we torpedo any resolution that could provide justification to an armed intervention.

As I said in my original post, that is an evolving area of the law. International law is always evolving and does not rely only on signed documents.

There was no legal basis for the Nuremberg tribunals, but they are now accepted as valid under international law.

The responsibility to protect is an evolving area. Some have argued that a state can intervene in another state to protect civilian lives even without UN authorization. Obviously, no every country, especially those that murder their own citizens agree with that.

[ikalugin]

The responsibility to protect is an evolving area. Some have argued that a state can intervene in another state to protect civilian lives even without UN authorization. Obviously, no every country, especially those that murder their own citizens agree with that.

Well, if you want to play that game, sure why not.

The problem with this is that it violates soverenity without a legitimate cause. If a western party could do it for it's ideological or geopolitical needs, if it can interfere in Iraq, Kosovo, Lybia (and others, if we count covert and subversive actions) what stops others from doing the same?

But I guess you would argue that it was all done for the right reasons, with the western powers having the exceptional rights for their actions. The sad thing is that the Pandora's box has been opened and if the western military dominance fails there would be a free for all out there, something I would not like.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

...if the western military dominance fails there would be a free for all out there, something I would not like.

If western military dominance fails there would be a free for all regardless of whether we had taken action in Syria or not.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

If western military dominance fails there would be a free for all regardless of whether we had taken action in Syria or not.

Yes and no.

The unilateral action is possible due to the said dominance and is in a way interrelated with it through western exceptionalism.

At the same time if there was a strong, inclusive and impartial international security system the world would work just fine, however unilateral actions undermine such a system.

So in a way it is a vicious cycle of sorts.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Yes and no.

The unilateral action is possible due to the said dominance and is in a way interrelated with it through western exceptionalism.

At the same time if there was a strong, inclusive and impartial international security system the world would work just fine, however unilateral actions undermine such a system.

So in a way it is a vicious cycle of sorts.

Well a "strong, inclusive and impartial international security system" has never existed in the history of mankind so you can hardly say the world would work "just fine".

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

Well a "strong, inclusive and impartial international security system" has never existed in the history of mankind so you can hardly say the world would work "just fine".

True, UN blew it in the 40s or 50s depending on who you ask.

However, UN in it's imperfect form, as well as other such institutions form the level of threshhold for that FFA we have been talking about. Undermining them lowers that level.

[Bilge_Rat]

well international law has been shifting for a long time, at least since WW1.

What Ikalugin is arguing for is what is called the Westphalien system, also known as "Realpolitik", one of Kissinger's favorites and which is based on the 1648 peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years War. Under that system, each sovereign state is free to manage its internal affairs as it sees fit without any outside interference.

What we have also seen since 1918, championed by the UN, US and EU is a "morality" based system where a certain basic level of human rights are agreed on and all nations are expected to abide by them. Under that system, it is permissible for one nation to interfere in another nation if it is mistreating its own citizens.

Obviously, not every nation falls strictly in one camp or another and there is not unanimity on either approaches.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

 

Neither of those provide legal basis.

The general assembly's documents do not provide the legal basis for the simple reason of the GA not having the right to authorise military action.

The UNSC resolution you cite does not authorise military action. The reason why it does not authorise military action of any kind is simple - authorisation to create a no-fly-zone over Lybia (a military action) was abused to conduct A-G airstrikes (with illegal ground operations by special forces, but noone cares about those) and so we torpedo any resolution that could provide justification to an armed intervention.

As will China. Isn't it strange that totalitarian or formerly totalitarian countries are more protective of personal and national sovereignty than so-called democratic countries? In China, property ownership is pretty sacred. There's not even eminent domain in China because individuals' right to property ownership is so strong.

Values we in the West claim are the bedrock of our civilization are taken from us and those countries we look down upon as places where our "freedoms" don't exist are defending those freedoms while we cower to the United Nations after doing something right.

The UN has no right to authorize or take military action. They are a sorry joke on humanity. Go Russia and China on this issue!

[Bilge_Rat]

more info on the "morality" based system. It is called "contingent Sovereignty";

Contingent sovereignty refers to the new and still evolving theory which challenges the norm of non-intervention in the internal affairs of countries, commonly associated with the Westphalian doctrine of sovereignty.

Stewart Patrick of the United States State Department has described the contingent sovereignty as follows.[1]

Historically, the main obstacle to armed intervention -humanitarian or otherwise- has been the doctrine of sovereignty, which prohibits violating the territorial integrity of another state. One of the striking developments of the past decade has been an erosion of this non-intervention norm and the rise of a nascent doctrine of “contingent sovereignty.”

This school of thought holds that sovereign rights and immunities are not absolute. They depend on the observance of fundamental state obligations. These include the responsibility to protect the citizens of the state. When a regime makes war on its people or cannot prevent atrocities against them, it risks forfeiting its claim to non-intervention. In such circumstances, the responsibility to protect may devolve to the international community.

This emerging consensus reflects the traumas of the twentieth century. The seminal event was the Holocaust, but it was hardly the last to shock the conscience of humankind. From the killing fields of Cambodia to the bloody hills of Rwanda, a litany of atrocities has mocked our earnest, repeated pledges of 'Never Again.'

Following the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described what he termed a "developing international norm ... that massive and systematic violations of human rights wherever they may take place ... should not be allowed to stand." No longer should frontiers be considered an absolute defense behind which states can commit crimes against humanity with "sovereign impunity."

The concept of contingent sovereignty is evolving and currently not codified in international law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_sovereignty