The Syria Attacks: Haven’t We Had These Debates Already?
Reports of another horrific use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria seems to have affected President Trump. In comments today, President Trump said the chemical attacks against civilians “crossed a lot of lines for me” and changed the way he views Syria and leader Bashar al-Assad. Although it is always hard to interpret the President’s comments, he did cite his “flexibility” to change his policies. One might interpret this to mean that the U.S. my change course and directly use military force against the Assad government in Syria.
As tragic as this latest attack is, I also feel like I am in a time-warp that has sent me back to 2012-13 when similar chemical weapons attacks led to similar global outrage which led to an American debate about whether to launch military attacks on Syria. President Obama famously decided to launch such strikes (without Congress or the UN) and then changed his mind and sought congressional consent. He never got that, but he did work out an agreement with Russia and the Assad government to remove Syria’s chemical weapons capability. That didn’t work out as well as he hoped (to use a tragic understatement). But the factual and legal issues are almost identical today.
So as a service to readers, let me just link to some of the legal analysis we posted back then, much of which still applies today. Updates of course will be necessary, but this is the right place to start.
I argued in 2012 that a strict reading of the U.N. Charter prohibited any U.S. strike on the Syrian government without consent from the U.N. Security Council. This would be the case even if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians during its civil war. Former top UK legal adviser Daniel Bethlehem took issue with my formalist reading of the U.N. Charter.
Kevin wondered why the use of chemical weapons itself was so significant as opposed to the civilian deaths it caused. Put another way, he pointed out that the use of chemical weapons, however horrible, was not necessarily any more of a war crime for legal purposes that the use of non-chemical weapons against civilians and non-combatants. He also points out in a later post that the Rome Statute does not single out chemical weapons use alone as a crime, despite an initial proposal by drafters to do so.
Finally, we held an “insta-symposium” on Syria with many great contributions from scholars, legal and non-legal, on the difficult questions raised by the Syria conflict. A list of those posts can be found here at the bottom of the first post in that symposium, from Stephanie Carvin.
Hopefully, this will help all of us refresh ourselves for the great Syria intervention debate, Round II (Donald J. Trump edition).