Daily Times

Under international law, there are generally two circumstances that permit military intervention:

self-defence or the approval of the UN Security Council.

Firstly, the legal framework of self-defence cannot be applied to justify intervention in Syria’s case because the use of chemical weapons within the territorial confines of Syria does not constitute an armed attack on the United States. Secondly, the Security Council authorisation of international action requires the support of nine member nations on the 15-member panel. Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council may veto a proposed action. In Syria’s case, there is a strong possibility that Russia and China will exercise their veto power.

Unfortunately, the approval of the Security Council does not seem to have deterred the US as we have learned from examining history. They intervened in Kosovo in 1999 when Russia blocked UN Security Council support and again in 2003 when Russia resisted the Bush Administration’s request to enter Iraq. In defence potential U.S. intervention in Syria, Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haas stated that the “legitimacy” of a US-led attack “would rest on the case that Syria’s use of chemical weapons violated international law.” The question is should the US violate international law itself in order to enforce the consequences of Syria’s alleged violation.

As it stands, the US failed to secure the United Kingdom as a proactive ally for an intervention in Syria. The British Parliament, on August 29, voted against a preliminary motion in favour of military strikes on Syria relying on the grounds of international law. This was a huge blow to the humanitarian intervention doctrine as Prime Minister David Cameron declared the UK’s intent to support intervention in Syria alongside the US.

Dipping into history once again, the 78-day military intervention in Kosovo was considered by many experts at the time to be “illegal but legitimate.” In the world of international law, this argument has no place. Unlike domestic legal regimes, international law relies heavily upon cooperation, self-enforcement and the support of the more powerful nations for its implementation. Thus, international law will cease to exist if powerful nations cease to follow it. An intervention in Syria in flagrant violation of accepted international law would open the floodgates for all nations to disregard inconvenient legal practices, setting a bad precedent for others.

Military intervention is not the only option to address the Syrian crisis. States may enforce strict economic sanctions against Syria and its supporters. For example, the US can cut off all contracts to purchase military supplies from Rosoboronexpert, the state-owned Russian arms dealer that provided many of the weapons behind Bashar al-Assad’s alleged atrocities. Short of military intervention, states could economically cripple the Syrian government by perhaps disrupting the supply chain on which the Syrian government relies or freezing the assets of the Syrian government officials supporting illegal activities within their state.

Focusing now on Syria’s use of chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention 1993 prohibits the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer and the use” of chemical weapons. The United States and 188 other states ratified this convention. Syria and six other states are not parties to the convention. This means that Syria is technically not bound by the treaty’s proscription against chemical weapons production and use. However, Syria is in fact a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. The keyword is war; a violation of the long established Geneva Conventions might strengthen the case for a legal intervention.

Sartaj Aziz, the Prime Minister’s advisor on National Security and Foreign Affairs, did not yet give a clear statement on Pakistan’s take on the military intervention in Syria. Mr Aziz has, however, hinted that military intervention in Syria should be the last resort. He also added that only once a proper investigation is conducted as to the extent of the use of chemical weapons by Al-Assad’s regime should the international community make a decision.

For now, though al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons and actions in Syria is reprehensible, a potential breach of international law by an intervener like the US would be a greater tragedy, leading the world on a much more dangerous trajectory.

The writer is a research associate at the Research Society of International Law