Last December, the U.S. Senate failed to give consent to U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).  Since the election hasn’t really changed the composition of the Senate all that much, I kind of thought this treaty was dead, or at least dormant, for a while here in the U.S.  Maybe not!

Groups opposed to US ratification of the CRPD are saying that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold hearings on June 4 to discuss ratification of the treaty.  And the critics are ready. In the latest critique, Iain Murray and Geoffrey McClatchey argue that the CRPD really does go beyond what U.S. law requires under the American with Disabilities Act by suggesting all entities must give all individuals accommodations, whereas the ADA has a number of important exemptions.  I am not sure about this, and it seems like a fairly technical matter that could be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Since the CRPD would be non-self-executing, I am not sure this would be a huge problem for Congress, which could easily say that the ADA is enough to comply with the CRPD.

More problematically, the senators who offered their opposition last summer in the SFRC committee hearings are deeply troubled by the refusal of the Obama Administration to clarify that the language requiring equal treatment in the provision of “health care” for “sexual and reproductive health” in the CRPD’s Article 25 does not include abortion services. Again, I think the practical impact is fairly small, but I don’t fault senators who are pledged to oppose expansion of abortion services to be worried about this.  Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed “declaration” to attach to advice and consent would seem to solve this.

The United States understands that the phrase “sexual and reproductive health” in Article 25(a) of the Convention does not include abortion, and its use in that Article does not create any abortion rights, cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion, and in no way suggests that abortion should be promoted as a method of family planning.

I don’t see this is a big deal, but if it would remove one obstacle to ratification and get the necessary votes, I don’t see why CRPD proponents wouldn’t just agree to take this language on.

Overall, I do think critics of the CRPD are overstating the likelihood that the treaty will have a meaningful impact on U.S. law and policy.  There could be an impact, but the institutional protection is that any changes required by the CRPD will have to clear Congress in the form of another statute. This is a non-trivial institutional protection.  Sure, the Disabilities Committee will probably crank out some interpretations of the CRPD that the U.S. Congress will disagree with, but the chances of those interpretations seriously affecting U.S. law seem fairly small.

On the flip side, I also think the proponents of the CRPD are exaggerating its benefits.  It may have some small impact on the practice of foreign countries, but there is little evidence it would lead to wholesale changes in other countries either.

As I have argued before, the potential problems in this treaty are just not serious enough for me to get worked up about it.  On the other hand, the benefits are not exactly large enough to get excited about either. Still, the upcoming battle for the CRPD is a proxy for the entire U.S. attitude toward the various U.N. human rights treaties. So it matters, even if this particular treaty is not a big deal.

Professor Stefan Talmon of the University of Bonn and St. Anne’s College in Oxford offers one of the first serious attempts to defend China’s position on the UNCLOS arbitration brought by the Philippines.  In an essay published by the Global Times, China’s hawkish state-owned daily paper, Professor Talmon argues that all of the Philippines’ claims against China fall outside of the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS arbitral tribunal.

For example, the claim that China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea based on the so-called nine-dash line are invalid, the claim that China has unlawfully claimed maritime entitlements beyond 12 nautical miles around certain insular features and has prevented Philippine vessels from fishing in the waters adjacent to those features, and the claim that China has unlawfully interfered with the exercise by the Philippines of its right to navigation and other rights cannot be decided without touching upon China’s claim to historic title and rights within the area of the nine-dash line.

In addition, any measures taken by China against the Philippine vessels may also be subject to the “law enforcement activities” exception with regard to fisheries matters or may be excluded as an exercise of China’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction provided by UNCLOS.

The claim that China unlawfully occupies certain low-tide elevations in the South China Sea cannot be addressed without dealing with the question of sovereignty or other rights over these insular land territories.

Finally, declarations that certain submerged features form part of the continental shelf of the Philippines, that China has unlawfully exploited the living and non-living resources in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and that China has interfered with the Philippines’ right to navigation and other rights in areas within and beyond 200 nautical miles of the Philippines cannot be made without engaging in sea boundary delimitations.

I have to admit I am not very persuaded by this analysis. In Prof. Talmon’s defense, the essay is very short and not an attempt to provide a deep legal analysis of the problem.  But the idea that any challenge to the nine-dash line is excluded from UNCLOS arbitration is hardly obvious to me, since the basis of China’s nine-dash line is very murky anyway. It is not an historic bay.  I suppose it could be an “historic title” within the meaning of Article 298, but that is hardly obvious. Under Prof. Talmon’s reading, any claim of historic title, even if it undermines all of the other principles of UNCLOS, are outside the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS tribunal.

Similarly, when the Philippines argues that something is a “rock” and not an “island” under the definition of UNCLOS, I don’t see how that requires a sea boundary determination?

Most importantly, I can’t see how Prof. Talmon can avoid the question of why China is not even bothering to make these jurisdictional arguments in the UNCLOS tribunal. It is an oddly disrespectful move, to say the least, for China to essentially boycott the tribunal. Does Prof. Talmon think the Philippines case is so weak that ignoring the arbitration is justified?

Still, it is worth exploring these questions, since the arbitral tribunal will likely do so. I would hope Prof. Talmon has a longer version of his views posted somewhere, and if not, he is welcome to do so here at any time!

Armenian-American groups are up in arms over the U.S. government’s decision to file an amicus brief against a California law allowing claims against insurance companies by “Armenian genocide victims.”  But they shouldn’t be. The law really involves an ongoing constitutional powers debate between the states and the federal government over foreign affairs, and the U.S. government is siding (not surprisingly) with its own powers.  What is more interesting about this case, in the wake of Kiobel, is how human rights groups will increasingly support state autonomy in foreign affairs (to allow human rights lawsuits) and how business and conservative groups will likely oppose it.

The California law had been struck down by a unanimous Ninth Circuit en banc panel on the grounds that it was preempted by federal government policies and constitutional powers over foreign affairs. The law extended a statute of limitations on insurance claims against insurance companies that do business in California for residents or non-residents who are found to be “Armenian genocide victims.”  Both the district court and the initial appellate court panel had found at least some parts of the law could survive a federal preemption challenge (as Roger described here), so the unanimous en banc panel decision was quite surprising.

The Solicitor General’s brief focuses mostly on the “field preemption” theory developed most recently in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in American Ins Association v. Garamendi. Field preemption describes a conflict between a state’s actions and the federal government’s “field”, such as foreign affairs.  Conflict preemption focuses on the idea that the federal government has made an express legal determination with which the state law conflicts (e.g. through a statute or treaty, or maybe an “executive foreign policy”). Where the federal government’s policy on the Armenian genocide is a fairly complex muddle, I don’t think there is much of a case for conflict preemption.

The WSJ Saturday edition has a long review essay by distinguished historian Ian Buruma providing some historical perspective on the close to hot Chinese-Japanese conflict over the Senkaku Islands. It is a fascinating essay, and I was particularly struck by his argument that the Senkaku issue was essentially ignored by Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaopoing, whereas today’s comparatively weaker Chinese leaders cannot afford to downplay it.

As a historian, Burama sees this conflict as driven almost entirely by nationalist forces in both China and Japan (but mostly China) for contemporary political reasons rather than for deepseated historical animosities.  This is a view that is worth keeping in mind.

But I have one quibble with Buruma’s narrative.  He first describes the Senkakus as part of the territorial booty acquired in Japan’s 1895 military victory over China.  But this is not the official Japanese view of how Japan acquired sovereignty over the Senkakus because everything that was acquired in 1895 (like Taiwan) was returned to China in the post-World War II settlement. Japan’s view is that the Senkakus had perhaps had been part of Okinawa, but at any rate, had never been part of China pre-1895.

Buruma later describes the Senkakus as part of Okinawa that was returned to Japan in 1971.  But now he adopts the Japanese view of the legal position, and rejects China’s view that the Senkakus were never part of Okinawa.  But the U.S. acknowledged that there was a difference between the two island entities when it returned both in 1971 to Japan.

This is not really to criticize Buruma, whose writing I admire.  Rather, it is to highlight just how confusing the legal background to this territorial dispute is. Even historians can’t keep the positions straight. How will we ever expect the politicians to do so.

An article in China’s leading state-run paper, the People’s Daily, suggesting that the time may be ripe to reopen the question of Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa has already sparked sharp reactions.  The WSJ’s blog on China picked up the story, as did this Business Insider post, headlined: “China Now Says It May Own Okinawa, Too.” Other even more lurid headlines: “China Demands Japan Cede Sovereignty Over U.S. Military Base Okinawa.” have popped up all over the internet.  As there is a massive U.S. military presence on Okinawa, this issue will likely draw more attention here in the States.  The idea had already been mooted last July, as this article notes. The Chinese foreign ministry has already been asked about this, and failed to clarify matters much, leading to more heated reactions in Japan.

I think all of this might be a bit of an overreaction (perhaps an overreaction that the Chinese actually were hoping for).

The argument about Okinawa was raised as part of the larger argument about the sovereignty over the much disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.  Okinawa, also known as the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, was historically treated as a vassal kingdom by both China and Japan.  Its status, like that of the nearby Diaoyu Islands, was never entirely settled during much of the nineteenth century.

The Okinawa discussion was part of the article’s attempt to rebut the Japanese claim that the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands were historically part of the Okinawa/Ryukyu kingdom, and since Okinawa is now part of Japan, the Diaoyu/Senkaku are as well.  The article’s position is that the Diaoyu/Senkakus were always considered part of Taiwan, and hence part of China.

To fully push back on the Okinawa point, the article raises questions about the Japanese claim to Okinawa.  This is not exactly new, since Okinawan independence activists have raised the same arguments. I think Okinawa is today similar to Puerto Rico, and it is largely a self-determination question rather than a historical title question.

But what makes everyone nervous, however, is the idea that Okinawa’s previous status as a vassal state to the Chinese Empire gives China some sovereignty claims to Okinawa as well. This idea is deeply troubling, since at various times Korea, Vietnam, and other states have arguably had that relationship with China.  It has little basis in contemporary international law, as far as I can tell.  So I think this idea needs to be firmly rejected, and I have little doubt that countries like Korea, Vietnam, etc. are going reject it.

But the article is not really focused on establishing the vassal state theory of sovereignty (Now that would be quite an article). Most of the article is about the Diaoyu/Senkakus.  The Okinawa argument is only meant to further weaken Japan’s arguments for sovereignty over the Diaoyu/Senkakus.  If Japanese sovereignty over Okinawa is uncertain or at least less than perfect, than its claim to the Diaoyu/Senkakus is weakened as well.  But the article doesn’t flesh out, nor does it need to, actually establish China’s own claim to Okinawa in order to question Japan’s claim.

I don’t think the Chinese government will be making any moves on Okinawa any time soon. But it is useful for the Chinese to float such ideas, so that they can gracefully back down and “settle” for the Diaoyu/Senkakus one day.  A dangerous game to play, unfortunately, and one that may backfire if it continues to foster anti-Chinese Japanese nationalism.

ABC’s Univision reports on this op-ed by former Colombian foreign secretary and former vice justice minister, which seems to accuse shadowy Chinese business interests of influencing the recent ICJ decision in Nicaragua v. Colombia.  Here is the crux of the alleged wrongdoing (or at least shady conduct):

…in November 2012, the ICJ issued a ruling that certified that most of the contended area belonged to Colombia. Nicaragua however, was awarded an area of nearly 7,500 square kilometer.

Nicaragua needed part of the awarded area to be able to build the massive inter-oceanic canal the government is envisioning, according to Sanín and Ceballos. The canal is set to be built in 10 years at an estimated cost of nearly $30 billion.

The alleged problem is that one of the judges who delivered the ICJ’s decision is Xue Hanqin, a Chinese national who apparently knew the Nicaraguan ambassador to the court from a previous work position. The Colombians argue that Xue Hanqin probably knew about the canal and should have recused herself because her government had a major interest in the ruling’s outcome. Since she didn’t there are growing suspicions that she might have been working to advance China’s economic and geopolitical agenda.

My Spanish is even vaguer than my French, but, accepting the Univision description as accurate, than this seems like a weak attempt to discredit the ICJ decision.  To be sure, it is possible that Judge Xue knew the Nicaraguan ambassador from her time as a diplomat, and it is also quite likely that she knows about the Chinese government’s interest in a Nicaraguan canal.

But none of that seems to be close to enough to require a recusal or its equivalent.  To be sure, the ICJ’s practice on recusal is pretty lax, and could use some further development.  But even if you think that the Egyptian judge should have been recused from the Israeli Wall advisory opinion, at least the accusation there was about statements made, or views held, by the individual judge.  It was not a claim that he should recuse himself because the Egyptian government opposed the Wall.

But the Colombians are essentially saying that because the Chinese government would have favored the Nicaraguan case, and had a material interest in a favorable outcome, its judge should have recused herself.  That could not be the rule, since it would require recusals all the time.  Now, if they had evidence Judge Xue held shares in a Chinese company that was building the canal, that would be something.  But there is no such accusation, as far as I can tell. (Note: Colombia did not even request her recusal).

Is Judge Xue biased? I suppose she might have been. But she would not have been much more biased than any of the other judges on the ICJ.  With 15 judges, her bias could not have been all that important in the ICJ’s unanimous opinion anyway.

The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights seems to be condemning the forced feeding of hunger-striking Guantanamo detainees as torture, or perhaps as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in violation of the Convention Against Torture.

Force-feeding hunger strikers is a breach of international law, the UN’s human rights office said Wednesday, as US authorities tried to stem a protest by inmates at the controversial Guantanamo Bay jail.

“If it’s perceived as torture or inhuman treatment — and it’s the case, it’s painful — then it is prohibited by international law,” Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, told AFP.

This statement makes great headlines, but I don’t have any idea what exactly Coville is saying.  If its painful, then it is torture or inhuman treatment prohibited by international law? “If it’s painful” is not exactly a very demanding standard.  And the World Medical Association standards aren’t necessarily binding nor have they achieved total consensus.

As this Reuters report notes, U.S. courts, and even the European Court of Human Rights, have held that not all forced feeding is illegal.  Even in holding a particular forced feeding a violation of European human rights law, the ECtHR seems to have carved out an exception for “preserv[ing] the life of hunger strikers if shown to be medically necessary and not done for punitive reasons.”

So if that’s right, I think the OHCHR is acting rashly by issuing a blanket condemnation of all force feeding as a violation of international law, or even condemning the Gitmo force-feedings without any acknowledgment of the possible legal justifications.  It makes good headlines, but it should not be taken as an authoritative legal judgment or conclusion.  No doubt force feeding is horrible, and maybe the type of force feeding in Gitmo does cross the line (doesn’t sound like it, but I suppose it is possible).   But let’s not be so quick to assume its always illegal.

This report out of Prensa Latina in Havana suggests that the ICJ has expressed some sort of positive opinion on quality of Bolivia’s case against Chile.

In a press conference, [Bolivian Foreign Minister] Choquehuanca announced the International Court notified Chile on the start of the process and reasserted the Bolivian will of not affecting the bilateral relations with Chile. He also said the Court regarded the Bolivian demand as impeccable, and he expressed his trust in a favourable resolution for Bolivia.

(Emphasis added).  Now there are no doubt some translation issues here, and Prensa Latina is not exactly the most authoritative source.  But it does seem like the Bolivian Foreign Minister is suggesting that the ICJ, in its routine acceptance of an application by a member state, expressed some opinion about the nature and quality of Bolivia’s substantive case.  I am sure this is NOT the case, since the Court’s Registrar is only functioning in an administrative capacity here.  So if the Foreign Minister did in fact say what Prensa Latina reported, his statement is very misleading.  Hey, ICJ Press Office! I think you should issue a statement or something.

Last week, the government of Bolivia filed an application in the International Court of Justice against Chile arguing that Chile has breached its “obligation to negotiate in good faith and effectively with Bolivia in order to reach an agreement granting Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.”

Is it just me, or is this the weakest case ever filed at the ICJ?   I am baffled as to how there could be compulsory jurisdiction under the Bogota Treaty, whose relevant provision reads:

“…the High Contracting Parties declare that they recognize, in relation to any other American State, the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory ipso facto, without the necessity of any special agreement so long as the present Treaty is in force, in all disputes of a juridical nature that arise among them concerning: a) The interpretation of a treaty; b) Any question of international law; c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute the breach of an international obligation; d) The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation”.

According to Bolivia, the legal dispute exists because “Chile denies its obligation to enter into negotiations regarding Bolivia’s fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.”  Ergo, there is a dispute over whether Chile has an international obligation to negotiate and whether it has breached this obligation that it denies having.

But this is circular.  Bolivia is the one claiming there is an obligation, and the mere fact that Chile denies the existence of the obligation can’t by itself create the basis for jurisdiction.  Bolivia needs to point to some source which imposes a legal obligation  on Chile an obligation to negotiate in good faith on this issue.  The following appears to be Bolivia’s best effort to find such an obligation:

17. The Bolivian note of 1 June 1950, invoking the different declarations and commitments formulated by Chile, proposed: ”for the Governments of Bolivia and Chile to formally enter into a direct negotiation to satisfy Bolivia’s fundamental need for obtaining an own and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, thus resolving the problem of Bolivia’s confinement, on the basis of natural conveniences and the true interests of both countries”

18. The Chilean note in response, dated 20 June 1950, states that: ”( … ) my Government ( … )it is willing to formally enter into a direct negotiation aiming at finding the formula which would make it possible to grant Bolivia an own and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean and for Chile to obtain compensations that are not of a territorial nature and that effectively take into account its interests”

Apparently, those negotiations never worked out.  But there is an even more fundamental point. The 1950 Chilean note states that the government “is willing to formally enter into a direct negotiation”.  It doesn’t say that the Chilean government obligates itself to negotiate (whatever that would mean anyway).   The same non-obligatory language is true of a 1975 statement that Chile ”would be prepared to negotiate with Bolivia the cession of a strip of land north of Arica up to the Linea de la Concordia” (emphasis added).  Even if there was a treaty provision that explicitly obligated the parties to negotiate in good faith, I would be skeptical.  But there isn’t even that.

Maybe I’m missing something, but this case looks like a sure loser on admissibility. It looks like it is going to be a major waste of time for the ICJ.  I admit I am not an expert on the relevant treaties here, or on this dispute, but if Bolivia’s application reflects its best arguments, then I can’t see how the ICJ could possibly allow this application to proceed.  How would they ever avoid future cases where one party asks another party to negotiate, and then complains when that party doesn’t agree to do so.  This should be a slam-dunk unanimous admissibility dismissal for the ICJ. I just hope they don’t need more than a year to figure this out. (If someone out there has a good defense of Bolivia’s case for jurisdiction, would love to hear about it.)

Not content to push border disputes with only Japan and the Philippines, China apparently has decided that now is also a good time to create a border crisis with India.  Last week, Chinese troops apparently crossed over a disputed border to camp 20 km inside Indian-claimed territory in the remote region of the Himalayas (the Chinese deny the incursion has occurred and both sides appear to be climbing down a bit).

This rather hostile-to-China essay in the Japan Times provides a nice summary of how China has stepped up its activities on three different territorial fronts at the same time.  First, there is the ongoing dispute with the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal/Huangyan Island in the South China Sea. Then, there is that dangerous dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkakus in the East China Sea.  Finally, China is provoking India.

Overall, China’s strategy appears to be to put its interlocutors on the defensive and to exhaust them with low-intensity incursions. This is working.  Japan is now repeatedly having to scramble its jets over the Senkakus at repeated Chinese incursions, and India is apparently rushing troops to the remote border region to confront the Chinese troops.  But, as the author of the essay notes, these are all reactive measures that allow China to keep the initiative.  China is not seeking a war, but it is seeking to push the envelope against its neighbors, with some success. India is trying to keep the dispute from escalating and Japan has been defensive about the Senkakus for the first time in decades.

Only the Philippines seems to be able to push back and force China to react, albeit through the soft pressure of an Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral proceeding.

It is impressive how China can keep three of its neighbors scrambling to respond while it slowly builds up its territorial claims.  In the long run, China v. India/Japan/Philippines/Vietnam/etc.  seems like bad odds, but so far it is working. Will international arbitration play any role in resolving these disputes?  I doubt it, but we will soon get some empirical evidence if the Philippines is able to win a judgment that affects or shifts China’s behavior.

Professor Craig Allen of University of Washington alerts me to this excerpt from the press conference held yesterday at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  It is the first time, as far as I know, that a Chinese government spokesman has offered a detailed explanation of China’s legal position in the Philippines arbitration.   It still doesn’t fully make sense, or at least it is still not fully responsive, but it is something at least.  China’s explanation goes something like this.

1. It is the Philippines that is illegally occupying various islands in the South China Sea, not China.

2. Although the Philippines claims it is not seeking to contest sovereignty in the arbitration, it has consistently said it is seeking a “durable solution” to dispute.  This is “self contradictory.”

3. The principle of the “Land Dominates the Sea” means that all of the Philippines’ claims are essentially maritime delimitation claims that “inevitably” involve resolving questions of territorial sovereignty over various islands and reefs. But these are the questions excluded from UNCLOS arbitration. Hence, China’s rejection of arbitration has a “a solid basis in international law.”

4. Every nation in the region, including China and the Philippines, has committed to the Declaration of the Code of Conduct for the South China Sea, which obligates them to resolve disputes on territorial and maritime rights through bilateral negotiations.

Let’s toss out points 1 and 4 since they don’t really change much of the legal analysis on whether China’s rejection of arbitration has a “solid basis in international law.”

The really interesting parts of the statements are in points 2 and 3.  To China, the Philippines is misleading everyone by pretending to be interested in the Law of the Sea when they are really trying to advance their sovereignty claims. I am not sure that “durable solution” necessarily means “resolving sovereignty claims” but I suppose it is plausible.

The most important point is Number 3, which is that the disputes over the island/rock/reef distinction or the Nine Dash Line are so inextricably linked with sovereignty that they cannot be separated.

This is really what a jurisdictional challenge would look like, if China argued its case.  I think this is the most plausible part of China’s argument, but it is not exactly a slam dunk.  First of all, China’s invocation of the “Land Dominates the Sea” doesn’t help their argument much here since the infamous Nine Dash Line doesn’t seem to flow from any land claims, or at least China has usually based the Nine Dash Line on “historic rights,” not land.

In any event, the Philippines is not rejecting the “Land Dominates the Sea” principle.  They are just arguing that the “land” China is relying on is a rock, not an island within the meaning of UNCLOS Art. 121(3), and hence cannot grant China a 12 mile territorial sea even if China did have sovereignty.  Since some of these rocks/islands fall within the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone, this is not a sovereignty issue but a UNCLOS issue.  I am not sure that the Philippines is right about this, but they certainly have a good case.

It is also worth noting that the Chinese statement is conspicuously silent on China’s obligation under UNCLOS to at least allow a UNCLOS arbitration tribunal to determine whether it has jurisdiction (UNCLOS Art. 288(4)).  China’s statement simply assumes that the jurisdictional issue is clear, and it has no further obligations.  As almost any lawyer could tell you, jurisdictional issues are almost never clear, and even when they are, you have an obligation to go to court/arbitration to resolve them.

So China is slowly beginning to engage on this issue, and they are making a bit of progress. Still, they need better talking points. (And they need to be careful invoking the phrases like the “Land Dominates the Sea,” that could come back to hurt them later.)

New evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons against insurgents have spurred new calls here in the U.S. for military action in Syria.  Here is the LA Times (hardly an interventionist paper):

An American or multilateral response should of course be proportional to the offense. That means considering whether chemical weapons were used against civilians or militants, and whether a “whole bunch” were used, as Obama put it, or much less. But there’s no doubt that an operation to secure or destroy the regime’s chemical weapons would be consistent with this country’s stated commitment (one that all too often has not been honored) to protect civilians from the worst ravages of war.

The editorial was plainly drafted carefully with some knowledge of the legal issues that would apply to such an operation.  First of all, there is that pesky U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 which many folks think grants the the U.S. Congress the exclusive power to authorize U.S. military force.  I don’t think the editorial envisions President Obama seeking congressional authorization, so it is probably assuming he would act under his inherent Commander-in-Chief powers. (When George W. Bush was president, newspapers like the LA Times used to worry about the unilateral exercise of this type of power, but these days, not so much.)

Second, there is the international law governing the use of force. I raised this question back in December, when President Obama drew his red line, suggesting that the self-defense justification under the U.N. Charter can’t work here.  This post drew two very good responses from experts in the field, one from Daniel Bethlehem (formerly the chief legal advisor to the UK’s Foreign Office) and the other from Ashley Deeks (former legal advisor to the U.S. State Department, now UVA Law Prof).

My earlier post offered a simple no-frills reading of the U.N. Charter, building on the simple no-frills reading of the U.N. Charter critics of the Iraq War were fond of making in the Bush years. This was a useful strawman, since I pointed out it would lead to a “silly result.”  Still, I am not totally sold on the more sophisticated rationales offered by Daniel and Ashley.  As far as I know, Syria has not threatened (at least recently) to attack its neighbors. I don’t count its skirmishes with Turkey, which seem in any event to have settled down. It has certainly not threatened use of chemical weapons against Turkey, Israel, or anyone other than the Syrian rebels.  I am just not buying self-defense here, unless we really are back in 2002 and President Bush’s doctrine of preemptive self-defense for WMDs has achieved international consensus.

What is it about chemical weapons that changes the legal calculus? Sure, I realize the use of chemical weapons here is a plain and blatant violation of the law of armed conflict, and really horrible in every way possible.   But as horrible as it is, I wonder why chemical weapons would be the trigger since the casualties from the non-chemical weapons in Syria has been much worse. And what is it about chemical weapons that would per se justify humanitarian intervention, while the mass bombings or killings of thousands of civilians would not?

I am guessing the answer here is going to come from a different path that has nothing (formally) to do with chemical weapons.  Since the U.S. has recognized the Syrian opposition as the legitimate government of Syria, I suppose consent for an intervention can be had without too much trouble. But, this opposition doesn’t exactly have widespread recognition, and doesn’t really control most of the country. Still, it probably is the least difficult legal path.

When President Obama said using chemical weapons would “cross a red line,” he must have had something in mind, unless it was a total bluff.  A unilateral U.S attack is very possible, and may even be desirable.  But legality is going to have to be finessed in ways that critics of the Iraq War should not be happy with.