Skip to content

UN Week – 9/3/13

September 3, 2013

This blog entry is written by a member of our blogging community and expresses those experts’ views alone.


John Carey, Editor

          President Truman famously said that the buck stops at the White House. President Obama has shown how to share the buck with Congress. He confounded his Congressional foes when he asked them if they wish to go to war with Syria. A military attack is war, and absent self defense it cannot today be carried on without UN Security Council approval.

          It is Congress that, under our Constitution, has the power to declare war. If they declare it, the Commander-in-Chief wages it. If they now say no to war, his hands will be tied just like those of the British Prime Minister. But even if circumstances allow Obama to attack Syria under US law, there remains the question whether international law would permit it.

          The possibility of a war of revenge has been mentioned, to punish Syria. Such a use of force has no support in international law. But what about the doctrine of responsibility to protect, known in UN circles as R2P and given muted support rhetorically in recent years?

While R2P is generally assumed to authorize the use of force by the Security Council, would it also support a Permanent Member in doing so, in the face of veto by one or more other Permanent Members? In short, do we, the US, acting alone if necessary, have a responsibility to protect Assad’s victims from his cruelty.

R2P applies to atrocities amounting to crimes against humanity. Does the use of poison gas against one’s own civilians rise (or sink) to the level of a crime against humanity? The Secretary of State in his speech on August 30th blurred this question by using the bland term “norm” to describe what Assad had breaching by his gas attacks. He said there is a “norm” against the use of poison gas. He was, in my view, too timid in this choice of words.

The Secretary should, in my opinion, have boldly charged Assad with a violation of law. While Syria has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention that entered into force in 1997, it did in 1968 accede to the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. If Assad should deny that he is waging war against his domestic enemies, let him shout that at the graves of his thousands of victims.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: