On the 7th of April, the world woke up to the news that United States had ordered its military to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces which according to the Pentagon led to the firing of 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Al Sharat airfield in Syria.

These Strikes raise two broad legal questions. The first involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves U.S domestic law and who gets to decide-between the President and the US Congress- whether the US should attack another country. This piece speaks only to the question on International Law and leaves the domestic law question to experts in U.S. laws.

So did the U.S. have authority under International Law to attack Syria?

There are only two circumstances in which the use of military force is legal under the UN Charter of 1945, a treaty the United States has ratified: (x) in self defence, or (y) with the authorisation of the UN Security Council. The United Nations did not approve the strike, and well the U.S. Defense Department justified the act as ‘intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again,’ which makes it an act of deterrence rather than self defence.

NO, the U.S. by its attack on Syria has violated International law which it is a signatory to. Taking this kind of action even though it may be well-intentioned, with the strategic intent of stopping the atrocious use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, unfortunately is illegal under international law.

Okay! So what?

Is the Trump administration in trouble? We doubt it. The U.S. is powerful. While it is the responsibility of institutions like the UN Security Council to deal with lawbreakers in the international community, if one of the lawbreakers is a great power-as in this case one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council- then the chances of enforcement against a country like that are pretty slim.

The truth is International Law relies on countries doing the right thing, respecting their obligations in good faith under international law, and it also relies upon pressure being brought by other countries to call out law-breaking when it happens. This has often led to the deriding comments in some legal quarters that International Law is nor real law as it is not supported by force of coercion.

So far, the U.S. has a lot of international support. Germany, the UK, France, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and many other countries have made statements supporting the strike action. It is unlikely that there will be strong pressure to sanction the U.S., except from a minority including Russia and Iran who have been staunch supporters of the Assad regime in Syria.

OUR TAKEAWAY

International politics is a space of high level stakes and intrigue. As with domestic law, most times in the interaction of powerful interests, the law seems to take the back seat. The law only seems useful when wielded against weaker countries. The recent calls for the boycott of the International Criminal Court by African countries for perceived bias of the institution against African leaders throws more light on this point.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

culled from http://www.legitng.com/the-trumpal-entry-of-syria-the-international-law-question/