The justification for military strikes against Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons

The war in Syria has been raging for over two years and resulted in the loss of thousands of Syrian lives and displacement of tens of thousands of others. So far, all attempts to end it including the imposition of sanctions against Assad regime have failed to produce the desired results. Until recently the crisis appeared to be losing its importance in the international media but following the recent use of chemical weapons against civilians and rebel forces allegedly by the Syrian forces, the civil war in Syrian once again is dominating the international news. A number of western countries including United States, Britain, and France have condemned the use of such weapons of mass destruction against Syrians and have vowed to hold Assad accountable for the action. As a consequence, they are now trying to resort to the use of force against key military installations in Syria. The main issue that arises with such use of force is whether it can be justified under international law?

For any use of force against Syria to be justified under the international law, the use of force must be authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC (comprising of five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members) acting under chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter can authorize the use of force against a sovereign state if such a state is considered to be a threat to or in breach of international peace and security. The first time that the body authorized member states to resort to the use of force against a sovereign state was in 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea. UNSC also authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1990 after Iraqi forces had illegally entered Kuwait and occupied some of its territories. Does this mean that the west cannot resort to the use of force against Syria in the absence of UNSC resolutions?

The answer is no. The west can resort to the use of force against Syrian for using chemical weapons without a UNSC resolution. There is already a precedent for the use of force against Syrian in retaliation for the chemical attacks without authorization for such use of force by the UNSC. The military intervention by NATO in 1999 to stop the Yugoslav forces from committing further atrocities against Kosovo Albanians, for example, was not based on the UNSC resolutions but was conducted on the basis of humanitarian intervention. Lack of such humanitarian intervention was largely to blame for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in which almost 1 million people mostly Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutu extremists.

Compared to the Rwandan and Yugoslavian crisis, the number of victims in the Syrian chemical attacks appears to be low to necessitate humanitarian intervention. However, the use of force against Syria regardless of the number of victims of the chemical attacks and the lack of UNSC resolutions is important for two reasons. First, it will deter Assad forces from the use of chemical weapons against civilians and rebels in future, and could also serve as a deterrent for other leaders that might contemplate using such weapons against their people in the future. Second, the use of force against Assad forces could compel Assad regime to the negotiating table where a quick resolution could be sought for the prolonged civil war in Syria.

Before any use of force against Syria in response to the alleged chemical weapons attacks, however, it should be established that the alleged chemical weapons were delivered by the Syrian forces and not by the rebel forces. The western leaders who dislike the Syrian forces are pointing accusing figures at the Syrian forces for the chemical weapons attacks. The decision of the Syrian government to deny UN weapon inspectors access to the affected areas immediately following the attacks has not helped to diffuse this suspicion that the Syrian forces may have masterminded the attacks. However, the chemical weapons may have been unleashed on civilians by some elements of the Syrian rebels and not by the Syrian forces simply to drag the hesitant west into the crisis militarily.

Up till now, the west has been reluctant to supply the rebels with advanced weapons to fight the Syrian forces because of the fear that such weapons might end up in the hands of extremists who loathe the west. However, the president of United States, Barack Obama, had previously warned Assad regime that any use of chemical weapons by its forces would be considered a red line for the United States. In other words, the United States could take military action against Syrian if it uses chemical weapons against civilians and rebel forces.

Being aware of this fact that the use of chemical weapons could be a game changer, the rebels may have unleashed the chemical weapons to win international support for military intervention in Syria. After all, they have been increasingly losing a lot of territories they had previously held to the Syrian forces backed by Hezbollah forces in Lebanon recently. Any military action against the Assad forces as a consequence of the chemical weapons attack could therefore tip the balance once again in the favour of rebels.

Returning to the initial question about whether any use of force against Syrian can be justified without the United Nations mandate, the answer is yes. The use of force against Assad regime can be conducted on humanitarian basis to prevent further casualties of the war. It is also important to help ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not used indiscriminately against people by any rogue state in any part of the world. While these might sound very nice, the launching of military strikes is easy to conduct but difficult to control its consequences which could be unintended. Western leaders should recognize this fact before conducting any military strikes against Syria.