International Law: Analysis of the Syria Strikes and International Law

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the 2018 air and missile strikes conducted by the US, UK, and France in Syria, addressing the justifications for and against these actions within the framework of international law. The paper begins by establishing the historical context of surgical strikes and the legal principles governing the use of force, particularly referencing the UN Charter of 1945. It explores the charter's role in maintaining international peace and security, and examines the limitations on the use of force as outlined in Article 2(4) and the exceptions of self-defense (Article 51) and Security Council authorization. The essay delves into the legal arguments surrounding the strikes, including the absence of Security Council approval and the debate over self-defense and humanitarian intervention, particularly in the context of chemical weapons use. It also discusses the challenges in applying international law principles to contemporary conflicts, especially involving non-state actors and the concept of humanitarian intervention. The essay concludes by evaluating the justifications presented for the strikes and their compliance with international law, arguing that the strikes did not meet the necessary criteria for legal justification under the UN Charter.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL LAW
International Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1INTERNATIONAL LAW
Introduction
Nowadays, the term ‘surgical strike’ and ‘air strike’ have become a talking point in all
over the world. However, if the pages of history are turned over, it would be observed that even
the use of surgical strike was also resorted to in the past. The dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the conclusive evidence of the fact. The history said that on 6th and 9th
August, 1945, two nuclear weapons detonated by the United States over the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki respectively. For this, the consent of the United Kingdom has been taken by the United
States as per the requirement of the Quebec Agreement. The similar incident recently took place
in Syria on 14th April, 2018, where air and missile strikes have carried out by the United
Kingdom, United States and France in revenge for a suspected attack of chemical weapon in
Douma. The main thing is that no causalities were reported and no clear authorization has been
given by the Security Council regarding this attack. According to the citizens of various
countries this attack is completely illegal. Universally, it have been stated by the chief law
experts and prior US officials that the airstrike recently carried out by three permanent members
of the United Nations the UK, France and the US in Syria were unlawful under the provisions of
the international law1. It also includes the view of a prior topmost legal official associated with
the administration of Bush. In 2003, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, namely, Kofi
Annan at that time regarding Iraq conflict stated that the most important principle of the United
Nations Charter is non use of force as enumerated in 4 of paragraph Article 22. This paper
mainly focuses on the justifications related to for and against strike. While discussing the same it
also sheds light on the relevant rules of international law regarding the use of force.
1 Brunnée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope. "Self-Defence against Non-State Actors: Are Powerful States Willing but
Unable to Change International Law?." (2018) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 67.2: 263-286.
2 Wilmshurst, Elizabeth. International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. (E-book 2012)

2INTERNATIONAL LAW
Discussion
The United Nations Charter of 1945 is considered to be the introductory treaty of the
United Nations. It was signed on 26th June, 1945 and also treated as an intergovernmental
organization. It is the responsibility of the above-mentioned Charter3 is to uphold the human
rights of the citizens by achieving high standard of living, addressing several problems related to
health, financial and social, providing essential freedom irrespective of sex, race, caste, creed,
religion and language. As an international treaty the main purposes of the said Charter4 is-
 To maintain the universal peace and safety;
 To improve relations among countries;
 To foster support between countries in order to resolve cultural, financial, social, and
humanitarian worldwide problems5.
Kofi Annan stated that Secretaries-General faced numerous encounters in the course of their
duration but the encounters that checks and defines them certainly includes the use of force. It
has been observed that the aforesaid Charter6 tries to maintain the worldwide peace, but the
governments of almost all the countries support these kinds of unlawful attacks. These rights are
also enjoyed by the Government leaders and their legal advisers. The purpose of this article is to
make some sense of the character played in action by the international law on the practice of
power when a government contemplates the use of power abroad, or supports or even relies on
others to do it. At least five practical aspects are important to government lawyers, although they
are not always addressed more broadly by foreign lawyers. First of all, a difference is drawn
between international law regarding the use of power in public law, and constitutional
3 United Nations Charter, 1945
4 United Nations Charter, 1945
5 'Charter of the United Nations' (Un.org, 2020) <http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/> accessed 3 February
2020
6 United Nations Charter, 1945

3INTERNATIONAL LAW
conventions or rules governing the deployment or other involvement of the armed forces of the
state by a government in a condition of clash7. The critical lawful matters frequently arise in
connection with Constitutional Law and Practices for many states instead of public international
law. However, these matters arise also in the UK infrequently. It is considered by all that, in
certain States an indirect role has been played by the international law. Therefore, the main
issues confronting Germany and Japan are the restrictions in case of using the force laid down in
their Constitutions, which can or cannot adhere to international law, inclusive of the position of
the legislature in approving the deployment of the armed forces abroad. In case of Ireland,
Switzerland and some other Countries, the main issue is to ensure compliance with the
contractual or other obligations to neutrality of all activity. It is also observed in case of the
United States as well. In case of issues related to the Domestic ‘war powers’, the roles played by
the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress are significant. For instance, it was reported by the
US press in September, 2013 that the United States Department of Justice had a verbal opinion to
the White House that if the President was attacking Syria even without the backing of the
Congress, the President would act legitimately, but in that case he was focusing on US law rather
than international law8.
In case of the UK, as the concerned domestic laws are absent, therefore it is important to
identify the role of the courts and Parliament regarding the use of force. In case of the CND
(2002), before the Iraq attack in March, 2003, an ordered was passed by the Court of Appeal in
order to interpret the resolution 1441 (2002) and United Nations Charter, but the same was
rejected9. The Blair and Brown governments held large hearings on this and other issues related
7 Blank, Laurie R. "Targeted strikes: the consequences of blurring the armed conflict and self-defense
justifications." (2011) Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 38: 1655.
8 Scharf, Michael P. "How the war against ISIS changed international law." (2016) Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 48: 15.
9 'Charter of the United Nations' (Un.org, 2020) <http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/> accessed 3 February
2020

4INTERNATIONAL LAW
to the Constitution. It appeared that they had decided against law but they could have planned to
proceed through a resolution of Parliament presuming that prior the UK went to war, it should be
consulted with the Parliament. In 2003, prior to the Iraq war the same was also happened. In
2011, this issue reoccurred during the action against Libya under the government of the
Coalition.
Many authors are of the view that the limitations of international law regarding the use of
force at distinct situations inn history have been selectively ignored by numerous countries10. In
fact, as per a famous article published in 1970 described the ‘desertion’ in relation to the
standards of international law against the use of force. Whereas, according to the government
lawyers, legal problems occur not only when force is used by a State on its own but when it
allows or enables another State to use force. As per the provisions of article 16 of the Articles on
State Responsibility, 2001, a State that supports or assists another State in perpetrating a
worldwide unlawful act is globally accountable for committing so if:
 That State is aware of the publicly distorted evidence and actions; and
 The action would be globally unlawful if performed by that State.
There are many sociologists, human rights officials, and authors who elaborates the present
challenges related to the guidelines of public international law regarding the use of force. The
question arises relating to the validity of the international law guidelines in order to identify the
use of force in the world of today. It has been observed that self-defense plays a vital role,
especially against the ‘terrorist’ groups, which are also considered to be the non-State actors and
where there exists a possibility of attack with arms of mass devastation11. The perceptions of
‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘duty to protect’ are discussed with great importance in this
10 Maogoto, Jackson Nyamuya. Battling terrorism: legal perspectives on the use of force and the war on terror .
(Routledge, 2016).
11 Hakimi, Monica. "Defensive force against non-state actors: The state of play." (2015).

5INTERNATIONAL LAW
context. According to some authors, the powers of Security Council enumerated in Chapter VII
of the United Nations Charter regarding the authorization of use of force and the right of self-
defense described in Article 51 of the Charter12 are suitable to address present threats.
Many sociologists are of the view that the various rules described under the international law
are comparatively easy to state, but the application of these rules in the practice is not that easy.
It is very difficult to implement these rules which are usually found in the Charter13 of the United
Nations and in the usual international law. Apart from the Principles of the United Nations, the
Charter of the UN comprises of a prohibition regarding the threat or use of power under
paragraph 4 of Article 214. It has been referred by the Charter15 that the prohibition is not
applicable in case of two situations which are not related to each other. Initially, the Security
Council, acting in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter16, may take or authorize
compulsory measures. Furthermore, as acknowledged in Article 51 of the Charter17, force may be
used in order to implement the right of self-defense, whether individual or collective. The use of
force for preventing a major humanitarian catastrophe is another potential exception proposed,
especially by the UK governments. As the said Charter18 did not mention it, therefore it must be
found in usual
International law. The force used by the Government of the Territorial State on the application or
with the permission properly given does not cause any question under jus ad bellum. It is
unlawful to use the force in order to punish and take revenge from someone. It is best to avoid
12 United Nations Charter, 1945
13 United Nations Charter, 1945
14 'Charter of the United Nations' (Un.org, 2020) <http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/> accessed 3
February 2020
15 United Nations Charter, 1945
16 United Nations Charter, 1945
17 United Nations Charter, 1945
18 United Nations Charter, 1945

6INTERNATIONAL LAW
such terms even in case of political rhetoric. Some academics have rarely recommended that
rules of international law on the application of force are dead or that a major gap exists in this
matter between the USA and other countries19.
Now it is important to discuss whether the attack or strike against Syria is justified or not.
After the attack took place in Syria, it has been observed by numerous academics that this
ongoing disparity between the application of force and international law does not concern people
globally. It has been clearly stated by Article 2 (4) of the Charter of United Nations that all
members shall not threaten or employ force against the international integrity or political
autonomy of any State in their global relations20.
There are only two restricted situations in which a state may use force legally: (1) with
the approval of the UN Security Council, or (2) with self-defense. However, in this scenario,
neither situation suits the attack on Syria. As first of all, the strike was not approved by the
United Nations Security Council and secondly, it was not at all self-defense. Rather, an attempt
to stop Syria from using chemical weapons has been the most usual reason for this attack. There
is also no other argument exists in this regard.
There are urgent efforts to stamp out the attacks under the Chemical Weapons
Convention. In reply to an infringement of the Convention, no unilateral uses of force has been
provided by the Convention. There are some analysts who have pointed out ‘there is a decent
possibility that no state would have ever linked with it’, if this authorization had been granted by
the Convention.
19 Byrne, Max. "Consent and the use of force: an examination of ‘intervention by invitation’as a basis for US drone
strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen." (2016) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 3.1: 97-125.
20 Burley, Anne-Marie Slaughter. "International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda." The Nature
of International Law. (Routledge, 2017). 11-46.

7INTERNATIONAL LAW
Secondly, there is a failure of justification given by the United Kingdom regarding the
‘humanitarian use of force’21. Basically, three elements are behind this justification. First,
‘substantial proof of extreme public-spirited suffering that is usually acknowledged by the
international community as a whole’ needs to be present. It also needs to be ‘accurately evident’
that, for the purpose of protecting life, there is no viable substitute to using force. And finally,
the suggested use of force has to be appropriate, balanced to the objectives and stringently
restricted in time and possibility for the aid of public-spirited distress. However, that argument
does not function either. This reasoning does not look like to extend to the circumstances as it
stands.
Looking at the front lines, the ‘entire international community’ did not recognize that
there was substantial proof of an attack because Russia and China debated that more research
and discussion were compulsory before action could be taken. In addition, as far as the second
phase is concerned, the speed of the strikes at least raises the question if no other viable means of
saving lives are available22. The strikes were actually made in the day, when inspectors were
scheduled to start their investigation. On the other hand, furthermore, although these elements
have been met, only two nations- the United Kingdom and Denmark have accepted the right to
public-spirited interference. Consequently, it makes no attack lawful.
In spite of this vibrant unlawful nature, the attack has been supported by numerous
richest and greatest potent nations of the world. Almost all the members of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) along with Israel and Japan are included under this head. Most
have expressed this backing on the basis that, in the absence of the deadlock on the UN Security
21 Orford, Anne. Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, (E-
book 2003)
22 Hepple, Bob, Rochelle Le Roux, and Silvana Sciarra, eds. Laws against strikes. The South African experience in
an international and comparative perspective. (FrancoAngeli, 2015).

8INTERNATIONAL LAW
Council, a restricted use of force which penalizes a state for using such arms against its people
inappropriately is the only operative means of avoiding the possible use of chemical weapons.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia hailed the assaults and said ‘these crimes
cannot be perpetrated without immunity by the Assad regime’. However, this is not considered to
be a lawful debate and as per the observation of several legal experts, the language of the debate
has a visibly illegal aroma of armed retaliations23. All that remains from this debate is that these
attacks are ‘illegal but legitimate’. Nevertheless, if the concept of ‘illegal but legitimate’ is
recognized, then its boundaries become null, at least with regard to the use of force.
Now, the question arises in which way the people cope with this disparity between the
use of force and the legal international law. Numerous opinions have been given in this regard.
One of the options is to keep ignoring international law and justifying the unlawful use of force
in moral language. For all intents and purposes, this would continue the status quo approach and
slowly degrade the exclusion of the use of force in the global judicial system under Article 2(4).
This approach could be well-intended, but would be very costly.
Already major enforcement problems have been faced by the international law as the
centralized enforcement institutional mechanism is missing. In the least admiration for the
international law letter regarding the use of force, nations, specifically nations of the West, are
likely not to obey it themselves24.
Nevertheless, the United States, the UK and France consider it far harder, if not difficult,
to criticize the use of force by other nations when they openly complain about it themselves.
Thus, people must be concerned about violating international law restrictions regarding the use
23 Cooper, Camilla Guldahl. NATO Rules of Engagement: On ROE, Self-Defence and the Use of Force during
Armed Conflict. (BRILL, 2019).
24 Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force. (Oxford University Press, 2018).

9INTERNATIONAL LAW
of force if they care about the ‘rule-based order’. Otherwise, people accept that the universal rule
of law has totally collapsed.
A stronger way of responding to it is by trying to reconcile with, and improve the use of
force under, international law. Two things are needed for change like this. First, Western
countries must use intimidation to complain legally about their foundations without the existing
exemptions. This would mean that States should give up their extrajudicial moral grounds
founded on perceptions of dissuasion and more specifically follow the language of international
law. Therefore, some authors are of the view that, only in this way a new rule of customary
international law can be established. Secondly, it requires that the two chief permanent UN
Security Council members, Russia and China, are involved (or, at least, accepted). In order to
bring these nations in, a tactful method to restoring faith in the use of force would most likely be
needed.
This is an uphill struggle following recent actions in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya. In case
of Western states, specific resolutions and wording would be needed that any new foreign law
that requires the ‘public-spirited use of force’ does not aim at reforming the system. Rather, the
further exemption would permit the use of force only lawfully as a result of gross breaches of
human rights, which is very limited and specific25. In fact, Russia and China would also have to
recognize that their companions are pursuing abominably unsustainable practices.
It is a fact that the presence of the Western capitals in the field of international law and
the complexities of formal diplomacy appears impossible, rather than the prospect of change.
Nonetheless failing to make such a commitment would be the continuing weakening of a key
element in the rule-based regime its prohibitions on using force. Such anti-force principles were
25 Velyvyte, Vilija. "The right to strike in the European Union after accession to the European Convention on
Human Rights: identifying conflict and achieving coherence." (2015) Human Rights Law Review 15.1: 73-100.

10INTERNATIONAL LAW
originally laid down for good reason in the said Charter26 in 1945 in order to save successive
generations from the flare of war that brought unspeakable misery to humanity twice in the lives
of the people. This is certainly good enough to restore a policy of international law regarding the
use of violence27.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be concluded that current threats are met with
adequate interpretation and application of prevailing rules of international law relating to the use
of force, particularly with respect to the permission and self-defense of the Security Council.
Radical action is either necessary or unlikely to succeed in amending or reinterpreting laws.
However it is not possible for one or few powerful States to change the rules of international law
which have been formed. However, the assumption, that the prevailing rules regarding the use of
force are sufficient, eventually be subject to the efficiency and the ability of the members of the
Security Council and others in practical terms to tackle existing threats. The Council has strong
powers with respect to the protection of international peace and safety. It has been prepared to
operate effectively against non-State operators in order to counter humanitarian crisis both by its
comprehensive explanation of intimidations to peace and the authority of others to use force. In
order to promote worldwide peace and security, several provisions have been inserted in the
United Nations Charter. In spite of that it cannot be maintained adequately because numerous
governments of all over the world support these kinds of attacks which are considered to be
completely illegal. Finally, regarding the justification for and against the strikes it can be said
that these kinds of strikes are not legal but legitimate. In addition, from the view of the United
States, it is clear that this kind of strike again happen in near future.
26 United Nations Charter, 1945
27 Dixon M., Textbook on International Law (7th ed., OUP 2013), pp. 321-353.

11INTERNATIONAL LAW