Military Intervention Will Only Worsen The Crisis In Syria

In common with 88%[1] of British voters and 60% of American voters[2], I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of military intervention in Syria. I am not being cold-blooded or callous; I think it’s of paramount importance that the West stay engaged with the crisis, or any other future humanitarian crisis for that matter. However, the nature of Western involvement should not be military.

Russia and the United States brokered a deal last month to put President Bashar al-Assad's chemical arms stockpiles under international control. The agreement avoided possible U.S. military strikes that Washington said were intended to punish Assad for 21^st August gas attack killing over 1,000 people and 400 children[3].

Syria’s use of chemical weapons violated international law. However, if international law is so important in evaluating Syria's actions, then shouldn't it be equally important to evaluate the legality of military intervention from the West?

From the perspective of the UN charter, if the Security Council decide that the situation is a threat to international peace and security, they can decide to use military means to restore peace. However, the Security Council cannot agree to military action because of Russian and Chinese opposition. Therefore military intervention in Syria would violate international Law.

A fundamental rule of contemporary international law is that states cannot attack other states. The U.N. Charter embodies this rule and makes only two exceptions to it: a state can attack another state if it is authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution[4], or if the attacking state is acting in genuine self-defence. Neither of these exceptions applies to the situation in Syria. Quite simply, intervention on humanitarian grounds without Security Council backing is a violation.[5]

A new argument has been formed to avoid the constraints of these laws and legitimise intervention whereby if enough of the international community agrees to make certain actions legal, notwithstanding treaty agreements. As a result, it is being suggested that the American government should have the legal right to use force in order to alleviate a humanitarian crisis.

The problem with this argument is that it is trying to establish a new rule for which there is no precedent. The closest thing to a precedent is NATO’s Kosovo bombing campaign in 1998. However, that was based on the security interests of NATO members rather than a humanitarian crisis. A history consisting of one arguable precedent can hardly establish a customary practice of states.

Perhaps there is an obligation of states to take action on the basis of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which has been approved by member states of the UN. However, any course of action should be exercised in a way that will minimise human suffering, and a military campaign is unlikely to be the appropriate reaction in such circumstances. Western intervention could be used as an excuse for the Syrian authorities to commit further atrocities, and thus trigger further suffering.

Political scientists argue that military interventions pose the risk of changing the incentives toward killing civilians. After reviewing the history of such interventions, it was concluded that intervening on the side of anti-government rebels typically increases government killing of civilians by about 40 per cent[6]. Furthermore, the idea of supporting Syrian rebels seems preposterous. It would be a pretty unviable situation,; the West effectively would be allies with Al Qaeda who they regard as terrorists.

Even a ‘limited’ intervention such as the strikes described by John Kerry as ‘unbelievably small’, ‘you’ll hardly notice’ seem entirely futile, serving only to stall chances of peace negotiations and prolonging the vulnerability of Syrian civilians[7].

From a global perspective, if America took military intervention, then tensions could heighten and global dynamics could change, creating a divide. We could have a situation where America, France and the UK are on one side and Russia, China and Iran are on the other.

The West has a strategic interest in punishing people who use chemical weapons. America has a strategic interest in maintaining the credibility of an American president’s word. The West have a strategic interest in making sure that the Syrian civil war does not become a regional civil war. And above all, the West have a strategic interest in putting Hezbollah and its masters in Tehran on the back foot. Military intervention in Syria would not be for purely humanitarian purposes, naturally there are other reasons that should be kept in mind.

The “Geneva 2” Peace Conference seems a good place to start negotiating a settlement. For this to happen though, all parties must agree to enter into discussions without preconditions. The United States and other members of the international community need to set aside their own differences and adopt an inclusive process.

Rosie McLeod

Legal Developments Editor 

---

[1] ‘Syria: was the UK parliament right to vote against intervention?‘ The Guardian (London, 30^th August 2013) <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2013/aug/30/syria-uk-parliament-vote-against-intervention> accessed 28^th October 2013

[2] ‘Syria crisis: Obama wins backing for military strike’ BBC News (London, 3^rd September 2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23950253 accessed 28th October 2013

[3] ‘Syria chemical attack: What we know’ BBC News (London, 24^th September 2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399 accessed 28th October 2013

[4] Charter of the United Nations: CHAPTER VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

[5] Ibid.

[6] R Wood, J Kathman and S Gent,  Armed intervention and civilian victimization in intrastate conflicts, Journal of Peace Research, http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/49/5/647.abstract

[7] R, Sanchez, Syria: Congress turns on John Kerry for claiming strikes would be 'unbelievably small’, The Telegraph (London, 9^th August 2013) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10296999/Syria-Congress-turns-on-John-Kerry-for-claiming-strikes-would-be-unbelievably-small.html> accessed 28th October 2013.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are that of the individual author, not those of DUPS or Clifford Chance. All rights are reserved to the original authors of the materials consulted, which are listed in the bibliography below.