Humanitarian intervention after Syria

Abstract

This paper examines the legal status of humanitarian intervention in the aftermath of the abortive military operation in Syria. In tracing the history of the doctrine up to the beginning of the Syria crisis, it asserts that the negative reaction to the abortive use of force has reinforced the unlawfulness of humanitarian intervention. In appraising in detail the legal positions of the UK, the USA, France and other states, it analyses the interplay of constitutional law and international law in the Syria crisis with reference to the role of consultations of national parliaments. It asserts that the Syrian precedent illustrates the difficulty of identifying the opinio iuris of a state in which the input of international law through legal advice and public debate affects the output of that state through the expression of its legal position on doctrinal questions. By scrutinising the approach of the British government in consulting the House of Commons in relation to the continuing operations against Islamic State in Iraq, it argues that the National Security Strategy review in 2015 should address the concerns expressed by parliamentary committees regarding consultation of Parliament, the provision of legal advice and the lawfulness of humanitarian intervention.

The humanitarian crisis and civil war in Syria: Its impact and influence on the migration crisis in Europe

“…V této době Sýrie neměla podepsanou Úmluvu o zákazu chemických zbraní. K jejímu přijetí došlo až v září 2013 [16]. Nicméně navzdory tomuto faktu byla dokumentována řada dalších chemických útoků proti civilnímu obyvatelstvu.…”

Targeted killing outside armed conflict: a new departure for the UK?

“…The UK Government had sought Parliamentary support for the use of force in the name of humanitarian intervention to prevent the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government in Syria, but Parliament had rejected this request. 4 And in 2014 when the USA began to carry out air strikes first in Iraq and then in Syria on the basis that it was acting in collective self-defence of Iraq, the UK took part only in operations in Iraq. The House of Commons did not endorse UK air strikes in Syria; in September 2014 it voted in favour of action against ISIL in Iraq, but it expressly resolved that air strikes in Syria would need a separate vote in Parliament.…”