Paix et Sécurité Internationale

Over 9,000 have died and thousands of others have been expelled in what has become a year-long conflict between Syrian authorities and rebel militias in the latest string of Arab spring revolutions that have swept the Middle East and North Africa.  The Syrian regime has attempted to suppress opposition by acting militarily and using violence to squash dissent.  In what is becoming an increasingly intense regional issue, this situation is drawing more attention from the United Nations and the international community, who hope to put an end to the violence.  When considering this case, there are a number of international legal issues and policies at play.  The duty to remain neutral, collective recognition, the universality principle, U.N. authorization of the use of force, and humanitarian intervention are all important elements of international consideration that need to be applied to this crisis.  Lastly, whether or not the Syria situation constitutes an international and not just a domestic breach of international peace and security will serve as a crucial and primary criterion of evaluation.

        The UN recently implemented a proposal put forth by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that was agreed to by President Assad.  Thirty UN monitors have been sent as part of a mission to ensure a successful and lasting cease-fire between the two parties in Syria.  This Security Council-backed plan will be put to the test in the coming weeks, as violence has not decisively ended.  The truce, however, has failed to firmly hold, as clashes continue even five days after the implementation of the deal.^[1]  Although Article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter does not allow humanitarian intervention in matters that are solely domestic in scope, the humanitarian situation has been affecting other countries, notably Turkey and Lebanon.  Additionally, the Syrian government agreed to Ki-moon’s six-point peace plan that allows external humanitarian assistance personnel access to enter cities and villages in Syria where aid is much-needed.

        Keeping other options for the resolution of this conflict in mind, it is important to consider the duty to remain neutral under international law and the requirements under the U.N. charter to authorize the use of force.  This duty dictates that outside States may “not take sides to assist either the belligerent or the regular government.”^[2]  The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in the Nicaragua v. United States of America case, however, held that it is legal to arm belligerent forces so long as the external state actor does not directly provide military assistance in the conflict.^[3]   Some U.S. and international leaders have proposed arming rebels, with Saudi Arabia most vocally and avidly advocating this position.^[4]  The U.S. has been considering this idea but will continue to follow developments on the organization and unity of the rebel forces and certainty that weapons would not reach the hands of Al Qaeda before beginning an arms assistance effort.^[5]  The Syrian National Council (SNC) an exiled political organization that is headquartered in Turkey and that oversees the Free Syrian Army, a paramilitary organization, may be just the organization worthy of U.S. and international recognition and support.  

When looking to application of the use of force, collective self-defense is a useful doctrine.  Prior to the Persian Gulf War, the UN Security Council had authorized the use of force to withdraw Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait.  This authorization was grounded in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which promotes the idea of collective self-defense—that an attack on one member State constitutes an attack on all States.^[6]  Syria, however, has not launched a decisive attack against a member State, but rather its own civilians and internal militias.  Thus, collective self-defense presents a shaky alternative for international legal arguments in favor of military action against Syria.  Although the government has relatively effectively kept the crisis within its borders, there continues to be an ongoing refugee and humanitarian crisis and there have been some incidents along the Turkish border of gunfire in Turkish territory.  Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has publicly insisted to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.  This principle would allow NATO to take legal military action against Syria without U.N. Security Council authorization, as was done after the attacks on September 11 in the U.S.^[7]

        Another noteworthy aspect of the Syria crisis has to do with the nature of the conflict.  Because so many innocent civilians have died at the hands of government forces, the situation certainly brings into consideration the severity of the crimes being committed.  According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Syrian authorities have been exercising indiscriminate attacks on civilians.  Navi Pillay has reported that over 9,000 innocent civilians have been killed, over 18,000 are in detention, 25,000 have sought refuge in foreign countries, and more than 70,000 are internally displaced in what has been called a “shoot-to-kill” policy endorsed by the Assad government.^[8]  Although this conflict has not clearly and unambiguously caused a breach of international peace and security, the nature of the crime has nevertheless been so stark as to potentially invoke the universality principle.  The universality principle states that when a crime is so severe, it is considered to have been committed against the entire community of nations, and the perpetrators can be brought to justice by any State, a legal principle applied in practice in the Israel v Eichmann case following World War II.^[9]  In this particular case, the Syrian regime has waged war crimes and crime against humanity.  Although it is does not appear that Assad will be tried any time in the near future, the outrageousness of his crimes are great enough to be considered committed against all of mankind.