The US insists it will launch a strike against Syria. Nevertheless, US President Barack Obama has said he will first seek permission for military action from the US Congress. It seems that he has toned down his original bombastic rhetoric. This can only be good news for the international community and has been welcomed by international law groups.
In terms of international law, the US has yet to provide a legal basis for military action. Even if the US Congress agrees to a limited strike, this would not in itself constitute sufficient foundation for such action in international law. The legal basis for military action against Syria is currently the subject of intense debate by international law groups and the vast majority take the position that there is as yet insufficient basis for a strike.
According to the UN Charter, the use of military force by one nation against another is absolutely prohibited, unless it is in self-defense or has been permitted by the UN Security Council. In this case, the US has not been attacked and so it cannot claim to be acting out of self-defense.
The use of chemical weapons is banned by a 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1993 Convention on the Banning of Chemical Weapons, as well as a host of international practices and conventions. If Syria did use them it was in clear violation of international law, but this in itself does not mean the US has the right to unilaterally decide to launch a military strike against Syria.
What of the UN norm of the responsibility to protect? Can this be used as a legal basis? According to this norm, members of the international community have a responsibility to prevent a state from visiting mass atrocities on its citizens. However, while it provides that countries accept that a state cannot commit a mass atrocity against its people, there is no agreement on whether a third party country can resort to military action to prevent it. Countries subscribing to this norm still hold that only the UN Security Council can determine whether to authorize military intervention.
Can the principle of humanitarian intervention legitimize the use of military force, as a British government legal memo over the crisis maintained?
Humanitarian intervention has three basic requirements. First, there needs to be a general consensus within the international community that there is clear evidence confirming that a large-scale, extreme humanitarian crisis has taken place that requires immediate action. Second, there needs to be an objective and clear assessment that people will die unless military action is taken. Third, the use of force must be proportionate, and limited in time and scope strictly to the degree that it achieves the objective of saving those lives.
Although the British government felt confident that the situation in Syria complied with the requirements, public opinion remained unconvinced there was sufficient evidence and the British House of Commons rejected the government’s case.
Whether a country can legally resort to military force depends on the permission of the UN Security Council: It is therefore crucial to prove that the Syrian government launched the attack.
Both China and Russia have said they oppose the use of chemical weapons. If the UN inspectors or the US can provide incontrovertible evidence, and if Russia and China still insist upon using their power of veto, the US could appeal to humanitarian intervention as its basis in international law to say that there was a strong case for the legitimacy of military action. For the international community, establishing a basis in international law, however unconvincing, is better than simply flouting international law altogether.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —
RSS