| ID | 154253 |
| Title Proper | Alleged use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people |
| Other Title Information | does it justify forceful intervention? |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Krishnan S |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | The US has justified the use of military force against the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad, after its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. However, as long as the UN Security Council does not agree to intervention, unilateral American action is not permissible under the UN Charter. Even the principle of “responsibility to protect” is not justified in this case, as action would most likely be short, punitive and unlikely to end the attacks on Syrian civilians. The use of force rules, originating in customary international law and partially codified in the UN Charter, establish the lawful framework for the initiation of military activity by a government. Humanitarian intervention or a military campaign calculated to stop widespread attacks on a civilian population, including acts of genocide, other crimes against humanity and war crimes is also contested as it is not defined in the UN Charter, although many scholars and activists claim it is supported by the charter's central objective to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms. |
| `In' analytical Note | World Affairs Vol. 21, No.2; Apr-Jun 2017: p.22-33 |
| Journal Source | World Affairs 2017-06 21, 2 |
| Key Words | Human Rights ; Chemical Weapons ; Syria ; Humanitarian Intervention ; United Nations Security Council ; Bashar al-Assad ; International Law ; Syrian People ; American Action |