Skip to main content

International Law and the Use of Force in Syria

A major topic in current events is the questionable legality of any potential move by the United States to intervene in the ongoing Syrian civil war.  For those interested in better understanding this issue by reviewing the state of the laws governing the use of force, here are some resources that may be useful:
Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter pledges member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against other states.  However, there are two exceptions: Articles 34 and 51 permit the use of force when authorized by the UN Security Council or in self-defense, respectively.  Although these articles constitute the law on the international use of force, many modern legal theorists have nonetheless developed justifications for humanitarian intervention when the UN refrains from authorizing the use of force for political or procedural reasons rather than declining to do so on the merits of a given case.
These justifications were used in 1999 when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervened in Serbia to put an end to attacks on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.  In the case of Kosovo, the UN Security Council vetoed the use of force, but NATO’s actions were condoned by the international community despite the fact that the intervention did not accord with international law.  The case of Kosovo is seen by some as a precedent for similar intervention in Syria: both situations involve similar accusations of domestic war crimes, and both are in a legal grey area created by objections on one side that the use of force without UN authorization would be illegal, and objections on the other side that the Security Council veto has broken the process that could result in UN authorization.
A legal analysis of this issue is beyond the scope of this posting; fortunately, legal scholars elsewhere have already done an excellent job.  Anyone looking for an informed consideration of international law regarding the unauthorized use of force may be interested in essays posted here, here or here.


  1. Very helpful and clear analysis of international law! Thanks for posting this. I found this Washington Post article about the Syrian civil war helpful to understanding the conflict--


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …