Syria and the Limits of International Law

Earlier this week, the Assad regime most likely used chemical weapons against its own population in Syria. Up to 500 people may have been affected by this chemical attack, and approximately 75 individuals may have died. Western media reported that most western nations attributed the attack to the Assad regime, and although Assad himself has denied responsibility, this allegation appears credible, in light of Assad’s track record of using chemical weapons. Although this incident may have constituted a violation of jus in bello, and although this incident may be morally abhorrent, international law does not actually provide other nations with tools for a direct (military) response. The Syrian situation thus illustrates the limits of international law, which one may either accept as inevitable and necessary in a sovereignty-based system of international legal rules, or, which one may attempt to eliminate by changing rules of international law. This post will briefly discuss these options, in light of the ongoing crisis in Syria.
First, even in a dire situation like Syria, international law does not actually authorize other nations to use force against the offending regime. Our current international legal order is based on state sovereignty, and on the notion that such sovereignty may be breached in exceptional situations only. Using force against a sovereign nation may constitute the most supreme breach of state sovereignty, and under international law, force may be used against sovereign nations in two limited instances: pursuant to Security Council authorization and/or in self-defense. International law does not authorize nations to use force against another sovereign nation in other situations – no matter how devastating and limiting such a rule may be. For example, international law does not authorize the use of force against a sovereign nation if such a sovereign nation is experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe, caused by its own leadership. Thus, in a situation like Syria, where the country’s own regime is killing and wounding its own population, international law does not provide other nations with authorization to use force – unless such other nations can obtain Security Council approval or can demonstrate that they are acting in self-defense. As another example, international law does not authorize the use of force against a sovereign nation, although the latter may have used internationally-prohibited weapons, and may have committed violations of jus in bello. Thus, the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against Syrians does not provide justification, under international law, for the use of force by other nations against Assad. Additionally, even in situations where the Security Council is deadlocked and unlikely to authorize the use of force against a sovereign nation which has engaged in brutal tactics internally, international law does not step in to provide alternative legal basis to other nations who may wish to use force against the offending nation. Assad is thus safe from external interference, from the perspective of international law, so long as Russia/China continue to veto Security Council resolutions against Assad, and so long as he does not attack other countries.
The situation in Syria is akin to that in Rwanda in 1994, where the international community did not interfere, and where hundreds of thousands of civilians were slaughtered over a brief period of time. In Rwanda, like today in Syria, international law did not provide justification toward the use of force by any other nation, and Rwandan leadership was able to get away with its genocidal policy for several months. The situation in Syria is similar to that in Kosovo in the late 1990s, when Serbian president Milosevic committed atrocities against ethnic Albanians. In the case of Kosovo, however, the international community acted, through a series of air strikes against Serbia in the spring of 1999, instituted by NATO despite lack of Security Council approval. From the perspective of international law, international community’s response was correct in Rwanda and illegal in Kosovo. From the perspective of international law, international community may not do anything in Syria and may not use force against the offending Assad regime. This conclusion, although morally questionable, is based on state sovereignty, which forms the basis of our current international legal order. State sovereignty thus shields regimes from interference, even if they commit atrocities, violate jus in bello, and engage in the most reprehensible behavior (absent Security Council involvement). And, if not changed, our international legal order will continue to insulate abhorrent state policies and practices, so long as these remain internal and so long as the Security Council remains deadlocked. International law is of extremely limited utility in situations like Rwanda, Kosovo, and Syria, and its limits underlie its own weakness.
Second, if one is dissatisfied with the current international law rules, how could such rules be altered, to provide a better response in situations like Syria, of internal humanitarian crises and Security Council deadlock? Several changes are theoretically possible. First, one could retain the sovereignty-based system of international law but remove veto power for any nation from the Security Council. One could require that all Security Council resolutions be passed by a super-majority of ten or twelve nations, to ensure that authorizations for the use of force against a sovereign nation face strict scrutiny and require super-majority consensus within the United Nations. Second, one could adopt a regional sovereignty-based system, by allowing regional organizations, such as NATO, to use force against their own member states. This system would allow for regional military responses within regional institutional structures; such regional responses could get around Security Council deadlock and could alleviate humanitarian crises in places like Syria. Under this regional sovereignty system, military responses, such as the 1999 NATO-led air strikes against Serbia, would become lawful. Third, one could legalize humanitarian intervention, as a third exception to the general ban on the use of force. Harold Koh has written about this and has proposed a normative framework for humanitarian intervention; I have also written about this and have argued for a similar set of rules. A true humanitarian intervention, organized by a coalition of states, pursuant to a concrete set of humanitarian goals and limited in scope and duration could become part of our international legal order, while offending state sovereignty in the most justified manner. It may be argued that states which offend international legal norms waive their sovereignty and no longer deserve the protection of the same norms; legalizing humanitarian intervention against the most rogue regimes, such a Assad’s, would only minimally offend the general notion of state sovereignty as this concept would continue to apply for all other law-abiding states. A modified system of international legal rules could preserve state sovereignty while allowing for a more robust (military) response in situations of humanitarian catastrophe, like the one ongoing in Syria.
In sum, international law in its current iteration remains powerless to impose true military restrictions on leaders like Assad. Several western nations have already discussed the possibility of staging a military intervention against Assad; such an intervention, absent Security Council authorization, would be illegal under international law. Intervening nations could choose to ignore international law and act in a military manner, in the face of the dire situation in Syria. This could, in turn, weaken our international legal order, by exposing its limitations and by demonstrating that nations are willing to ignore international law, because this law imposes unreasonable restraints. However, international law, if modified, could contain legal tools that would enable nations to lawfully intervene against leaders like Assad. This solution may be preferable in the long-term, as it would allow lawful state action against offending regimes, and as it would allow international law to develop small limitations on state sovereignty, for the sake of protecting populations from harm directed at them by their own leaders. International law’s limits are underscored by the situation in Syria. In the future, however, international law does not have to remain powerless.

Call for Papers: 2017 AHRI Conference

The Promotion and Enforcement of Human Rights by International and Regional Organizations: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities

Conference: 27-28 April 2017, Leuven (BE)
Deadline for abstract submissions: 2 January 2017

The Association of Human Rights Institutes (AHRI), the FRAME Project and the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies (KU Leuven) are pleased to announce a call for papers for the 2017 AHRI Conference, which will be held in Leuven. This international conference aims to take a broad and comparative view of the achievements and potential, but also of the challenges of international and regional organizations in promoting and enforcing human rights. Further details of the call can be found in the attached document.
Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven
Charles Deberiotstraat 34
3000 Leuven
BELGIUMwww.globalgovernancestudies.eu
info@ggs.kuleuven.be
+32 16 32 87 25

AALS International Human Rights Section Call for Papers

The AALS International Human Rights Section is sponsoring two different Calls for Papers at the 2017 AALS Annual Meeting.  Submission details for both Calls for Papers are available below:

CALL FOR PAPERS
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
SECTION PANEL
2016 AALS ANNUAL MEETING
January 3-7, 2017, San Francisco, CA

The AALS Section on International Human Rights is pleased to announce that it will sponsor a call for papers for its program during the 2017 AALS Annual Meeting in San Francisco, CA. The program will be called Human Rights Outside the West. It will take place during the Annual Meeting, which is scheduled for January 3-7, 2017. We anticipate selecting up to two speakers from this call for papers to present their work during our Section’s program.

Continue reading

Go On! Program of Advanced Studies on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

The Program of Advanced Studies on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law takes full advantage of the American University Washington College of Law’s location in Washington, D.C., by giving participants unrivaled opportunities to meet policy makers, visit influential international organizations, and attend a multitude of international events. The program is a venue for total immersion into the realm of human rights and humanitarian law provided in an intense three-week format that enables individuals with limited time to develop their skills and gain practical experience.

AUWCL_HRAcademySummerBrochure_ENG_8.5x11_Page_1

Continue reading

Write On! Call for Papers: Colonial Law Conference, Helsinki (deadline March 1)

eci20ryhmakuva-7-349pxThe Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights at the University of Helsinki has announced a call for papers for the Conference “Law Between Global and Colonial: Techniques of Empire,” to be held from 3-5 October 2016.

The conference proposes to discuss the legal languages and techniques through which colonial powers ruled non-European territories and populations throughout the modern age. The aim of the conference is to examine in detail the juridical practices and discourses of colonial powers when they exercised their supremacy over colonial subjects and disciplined them. Although the focus of the conference is historical, its theme resonates in the present. With the great numbers of people moving about in Europe, Asia and Africa as migrants, guest workers, refugees and displaced persons, territorial states have often used methods and techniques that resemble those with which colonial populations once were treated. With research showing a sharp rise in world inequality, the conference poses the question whether legislative techniques and institutions inherited from the imperial past, once again see the light of day in the present.

The conference will close the four and a half-year period of the Finnish Academy research project on “International Law, Religion and Empire” at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, University of Helsinki. Members: Martti Koskenniemi, Paolo Amorosa, Mónica García-Salmones, Manuel Jimenez and Walter Rech.

Abstracts are due by March 1. For more information, see the full Call for Papers at http://www.helsinki.fi/eci/Events/Call_for_Papers_Colonial_Law_2016.pdf.

 

Inheritance Law Reform in Morocco: At the Intersection of Human Rights and Religious Identity

Last week, the president of Morocco’s National Human Rights Council (CNDH), Driss El Yazami, publicly released the Council’s most recent report on gender equality and parity in Morocco. The content and recommendations contained therein were broad, addressing a range of issues related to laws affecting women. However, one issue, in particular, received significant attention and has been the subject of heated debate here in the country: inheritance law.

The report comes four years after the adoption of a new, Arab Spring-inspired constitution and ten years after a controversial yet much celebrated reform of the Moroccan Family Code (al-mudawwana). While the CNDH has issued previous reports and memoranda on gender, the CNDH noted that the report was “the first of its kind” to review the efforts and achievements to promote and protect the rights of women in Morocco, but also to present the challenges, gaps, and obstacles that continue to prevent women from enjoying all of their human rights. The report is comprised of three chapters, addressing (1) gender equality and non-discrimination, (2) equality and parity in economic, social, and cultural rights, and (3) public policies and their impacts on women that are most vulnerable to human rights violations, and it offers 97 recommendations intended to ensure the full participation of women in society and their equal access to services and resources. From a human rights perspective, it is impressive.

In a press statement after the conference, El Yazami said, “There will be no democratic progress or fair and sustainable development in Morocco without the empowerment and full participation of women, who make up one-half of Moroccan society.”

The report provided many opportunities for controversy, but its recommendations relating to inheritance generated the most coverage in the Arabic- and French-language press. The report commented on current legislation around inheritance, which stipulates that male heirs receive double that of female heirs, among other such provisions. It then recommended an amendment to the Family Code giving women the same rights as men in the context of inheritance. In supporting its recommendation, the CNDH referred to both national and international law, citing Article 19 of the 2011 constitution and Article 9 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), of which Morocco is a party.

The most trenchant response has come from the Justice and Development Party (PJD), the ruling political party in Morocco since 2011. While they are often referred to as “Islamist,” the party describes itself as a political party with an Islamic frame of reference, an important distinction, I have learned, here in Morocco.

The party has referred to the report as an “unacceptable provocation,” criticizing its perceived overreach into the religious domain. Its principal objection has been that the recommendation to amend the inheritance laws contravenes explicit textual directives in the Qur’an, which the party says are not open to interpretation. Thus, they contend, the recommendation lacks legitimacy and legality in Morocco.

Continue reading