[Sondre Torp Helmersen teaches at the University of Oslo and is an LLM candidate at the University of Cambridge.]
Stephanie Carvin recently contributed to the Syria Insta-Symposium with a post titled “
A Legal Debate Devoid of Consequences (or Bringing Practical Judgment Back In)”.
Her call for a practical perspective is timely. The decision of whether or not to attack must be necessarily be a political decision, on which political scientists such as herself may offer sound advice. However, she apparently does not take full account of the fact that international law is (at least supposed to be) law.
She “crudely paraphrases” her position as follows: “if 15 men sitting around a table in New York say it is okay to strike, then somehow it is fine. If 15 men do not, then it’s not okay. This seems to be an incredibly poor way to decide how to respond to the attack.”
This line of reasoning is applicable to any legal regulation, domestic or international. Try replacing “attack” with any other matter regulated by domestic or international law,