 |
| A child at his bombed out family home in Syria. FreedomHouse. |
By Stephen Kozey
A year ago, President Obama said that if the Syrian
government used chemical weapons against its own people, it would cross a “red
line.” That red line has been crossed, with recent reports
confirming the use of sarin nerve agent and estimating between 300 and 1,300
casualties, including women and children. The U.N. Security Council has responded
to the situation by adopting Resolution
2118. This resolution strongly condemns the chemical attack and requires Syria
to forfeit and destroy its chemical weapons stockpile, as well as its means of
production and delivery of chemical weapons.
International law prohibits the use of chemical weapons, but
doesn’t permit military intervention in another country on that basis alone. Military
intervention in another country is justified only in the case of self defense
or when there is a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the intervention.
The conflict in Syria, however, has remained an internal one and has not yet
posed a substantial security threat to neighboring countries. Moreover, Russia
and China have consistently vetoed any resolution even hinting at the
possibility of intervention. It does not appear that the use of chemical
weapons has caused these veto-wielders to change their view, so there is little
chance of a legally justifiable intervention as things stand today.
But is the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons the
only legal argument that the pro-intervention members of the U.N. Security
Council (namely France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) can use to
try to sway Russia and China? What about Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as
adopted in the 2005
World Summit Outcome Document?
