Legally Meaningless “Red Line” Crossed in Syria

The U.S. Government has finally confirmed what other nations, and certain UN investigators, have been saying for weeks: the Syrian government has been using chemical weapons against the rebel opposition in its ongoing civil war and that at least 100 individuals have been killed. And the White House also repeats a version of the “red line” language President Obama first invoked last fall on the use of chemical weapons. So what does this mean?

As we’ve discussed here previously, it is not clear that the use of chemical weapons crosses a “red line” that would change the legal framework constraining military intervention in Syria by the United States or some other country.  If the U.S. wants to intervene, I don’t quite see how chemical weapons makes its legal case substantially easier.  Moreover, the White House has not revealed any change in its strategy that would necessitate re-thinking the legal framework (e.g. there is no suggestion the White House will intervene, or even ask the UN Security Council to intervene).  But if they do, these legal issues will likely be worth discussing again.