This week on
Opinio Juris, we continued the discussion on Syria. Geoff Corn started the week by examining
President Obama's options if Congress were not to enact an AUMF, a question that also occupied Peter who
yearned for the good old days of unilateral presidential authority to initiated use of force.
When the surprise Russian proposal to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control put the Congressional vote on hold, Kevin was
not convinced that this twist had anything to do with the "credible threat" of a US unilateral strike. Chris asked
to what extent the OPCW could be involved in the practical implementation of the proposal. Chris' post also pointed out how Russia has been more adept than the US at using international law rhetoric, a point he followed up on in a
post comparing the international legal rhetoric in Obama's speech with that in Putin's NYTimes op-ed.
The possible legal basis for action continued to fascinate us. Kevin wondered what motivated President Obama's
new theory of customary international law, in which the percentage of the world's population that lives within the territory of a party to a treaty would determine whether the treaty gives rise to custom. Julian linked to a forthcoming article by Andrew Carswell on the
possibility of General Assembly action based on the Uniting for Peace resolution. Following a comment by the White House Counsel that a strike would not be prohibited under international law,
Julian wanted to know more about the theory on which the White House thinks a strike would be legal under international law. Make sure you catch the comment by Charlie Savage who interviewed Ms Ruemmler.
Despite all these posts on Syria, we are not quite rebranding to
Opinio Syriae just yet!