Saturday

21st Jul 2018

Opinion

UK participation in Syrian missile strike on shaky legal ground

  • The remnants of a Syrian city after seven years of civil war (Photo: Reuters/Omar Sanadiki)

Prime minister Theresa May has announced British participation in a US-French-UK coalition strike against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons attack against civilians, which killed at least 50 people and injured hundreds.

She stated that the military action was to stop Assad's pattern of behaviour "not just to protect innocent people in Syria from the horrific deaths … but also because we cannot allow the erosion of the international norm that prevents the use of [chemical] weapons."

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 18 year's of archives. 30 days free trial.

... our join as a group

The PM continued that there is "no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons."

Her justification is that the strike is "specifically about deterring the Syrian regime" and sending "a clear signal" to others who might use chemical weapons.

May claimed that the action is "in Britain's national interest".

Unfortunately, these claims do not withstand scrutiny.

First, the British public does not see the military strikes as being in the national interest: 43 percent opposed missile strikes whereas only one in five people supported the use of cruise missiles against Syria.

The prime minister has not explained which national interests are impacted by Assad's use of chemical weapons.

No British citizens were harmed by their use last week and no vital security interests were affected.

Although the use of chemical weapons is reprehensible, their use in Syria does not impact any specific British national interest.

Secondly, May's argument for the use of force to specifically deter Assad has no support in international law.

The UN Charter does not authorise states to use force for deterrence. Specifically, article 2(4) states: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

The authority for using force is limited to the UN Security Council. In addition to such collective force, states may only use force in self-defence.

The charter vests the UN Security Council (SC) with the right to use force under article 42.

The SC may use force if other measures to give effect to its decisions "would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate".

The use of force includes actions "by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Russian veto at UN

In this case, the UN Security Council has not authorised the use of force under article 42. There is no prospect of such authorisation due to Russia's veto power.

The right to self-defence is recognised in article 51: states can defend themselves if there is an "armed attack" against them. There is no "armed attack" against Britain.

May also claims that "there is no practicable alternative' to the use of force. However, this is simply not true.

The chemical weapons attack has already transpired. There is no intelligence that a new attack is imminent – necessary for a preventative justification.

So, this missile strike is not impelled by a need to save human lives where there is no other alternative.

There are other alternatives to missile strikes after a chemical weapons attack has already occurred.

These include an Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation to establish facts and responsibility and the use of "measures not involving the use of armed force" under article 41 of the UN Charter.

The British PM did not exhausted these steps before committing the UK to missile strikes.

Finally, May claims that the use of force is necessary to enforce the norm against the use of chemical weapons.

Those norms are embodied in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides that when a state is in noncompliance, the conference "may restrict or suspend the state party's rights and privileges under this convention until it undertakes the necessary action to conform with its obligations."

When a violation causes "serious damage to the object and purposes" of the convention, the conference "may recommend collective measures to states parties in conformity with international law."

Crucially, the convention establishes a binding obligation to bring matters of "gravity" including facts and evidence to the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.

In other words, the British prime minister's action is directly contrary to the very international norm she is referencing to justify military action.

When a state's action is in serious breach of the convention – a threshold met by Assad's use of chemical weapons last week – the mandated solution is a recommendation for collective measures.

Evidence establishing the violation and any conclusions that flow from such evidence has to be brought before the Security Council for action.

The international norm that prevents the use of chemical weapons does not specifically authorise states to conduct military strikes to enforce it.

The precise language employed in the convention itself unambiguously destroys May's argument.

To be clear, Assad must pay a heavy price for his heinous crimes.

However, distorting international law rules and offering weak justifications for using force are unlikely to earn support from the domestic public or other states to make him pay.

The hard yards of evidence gathering, establishing guilt, and building international support are likely to be much more effective than theatrical one-off strikes.

Dr Sandeep Gopalan is a professor of law at Deakin University, Australia

EU toes the line on Syria air strikes

EU foreign ministers to back Western air strikes on Syria, the same way they backed the UK over Russia's chemical attack on an ex-spy in Britain.

Agenda

Macron and Syria top EU agenda This WEEK

French president to deliver speech on EU democratic model after populist victories in Hungary and Italy and amid an escalation of the Syria crisis.

Does the EU have a Syria strategy?

Instability in the Mediterranean region is not in the long-term interest of Europe - that means mobilising leverage that the EU has in other areas to incentivise hard-nosed actors in Moscow, Tehran and Ankara to agree to the EU's vision.

EU must create safe, legal pathways to Europe

As the rapporteur for the European Parliament on an EU regulation on resettlement, my colleagues and I have outlined an effective plan based on solidarity and humanitarian principles.

How the World Cup exposed Russian chauvinism

The suggestion that Russians themselves play a role in the condition of their state today is often dismissed as "xenophobic" or "Russophobic". But if not addressed, the evils of nationalism, chauvinism, and imperialism will continue even after Putin is gone.

How the World Cup exposed Russian chauvinism

The suggestion that Russians themselves play a role in the condition of their state today is often dismissed as "xenophobic" or "Russophobic". But if not addressed, the evils of nationalism, chauvinism, and imperialism will continue even after Putin is gone.

News in Brief

  1. Libyan PM rejects EU migrant camps idea
  2. Italy's Salvini to sue critical anti-mafia writer
  3. EU countries send aircraft to Sweden to help with wildfires
  4. British ex-commissioner's jobs called into question
  5. May to tell EU to drop Irish border 'backstop' idea
  6. Trump threatens EU over Google fine
  7. Spain withdraws arrest warrant for Catalan separatists
  8. EU readies counter-measures on possible US car tariffs

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. IPHRCivil society asks PACE to appoint Rapporteur to probe issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan
  2. ACCASocial Mobility – How Can We Increase Opportunities Through Training and Education?
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersEnergy Solutions for a Greener Tomorrow
  4. UNICEFWhat Kind of Europe Do Children Want? Unicef & Eurochild Launch Survey on the Europe Kids Want
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Countries Take a Stand for Climate-Smart Energy Solutions
  6. Mission of China to the EUChina: Work Together for a Better Globalisation
  7. Nordic Council of MinistersNordics Could Be First Carbon-Negative Region in World
  8. European Federation of Allergy and AirwaysLife Is Possible for Patients with Severe Asthma
  9. PKEE - Polish Energy AssociationCommon-Sense Approach Needed for EU Energy Reform
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region to Lead in Developing and Rolling Out 5G Network
  11. Mission of China to the EUChina-EU Economic and Trade Relations Enjoy a Bright Future
  12. ACCAEmpowering Businesses to Engage with Sustainable Finance and the SDGs

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersCooperation in Nordic Electricity Market Considered World Class Model
  2. FIFAGreen Stadiums at the 2018 Fifa World Cup
  3. Mission of China to the EUChina and EU Work Together to Promote Sustainable Development
  4. Counter BalanceEuropean Ombudsman Requests More Lending Transparency from European Investment Bank
  5. FIFARecycling at the FIFA World Cup in Russia
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersOECD Report: Gender Equality Boosts GDP Growth in Nordic Region
  7. Centre Maurits Coppieters“Peace and Reconciliation Is a Process That Takes Decades” Dr. Anthony Soares on #Brexit and Northern Ireland
  8. Mission of China to the EUMEPs Positive on China’s New Measures of Opening Up
  9. Macedonian Human Rights MovementOld White Men are Destroying Macedonia by Romanticizing Greece
  10. Counter BalanceControversial EIB-Backed Project Under Fire at European Parliament
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersIncome Inequality Increasing in Nordic Countries
  12. European Jewish CongressEU Leaders to Cease Contact with Mahmoud Abbas Until He Apologizes for Antisemitic Comments

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us