Incorrect use of force in Syria | Ingrid Aune's blog
Maktbrukens rules are strict for a reason: it's constantly states that exploit loopholes to cover up the aggression. Despite the fact that there has been a relatively small part of the international debate, bfc some in Norway inter alia to the consensus of "responsibility to protect" (R2P) as a possible basis in international law for the use of force in Syria without UN mandate. But those who believe that humanitarian crises should legitimize the use of force to a greater extent, even those who should show the greatest restraint when it comes to military intervention in Syria without grounding in the UN.
International law rules on the use of force or threat of force, is clear: war is prohibited unless there is a UN Security Council bfc mandate or used in self-defense to ward off further attacks against bfc the state or ally. All 193 UN member states have accepted this. International law protects bfc state sovereignty over its own people and their own territories.
During the 1990s, however, the Security Council continued human rights bfc more clearly against the sovereignty principle. The idea was that the world community must have the right to intervene in other states' internal affairs in extreme bfc cases. Council chose to interpret certain humanitarian disasters as a threat to international peace and security and could thereby authorize the use of military force (in northern Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti and later Libya).
NATO's unilateralism in Kosovo, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the diplomatic crisis that followed bfc contributed to the Security Council has limited the expansive dynamic interpretation of its mandate. In 2005, the UN General Assembly nevertheless agree that the world's states have a "responsibility to protect" if people are exposed to serious human rights violations. This principle obliges each State and the international community to protect its citizens against violence as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The principle of R2P ensures moral legitimacy of using military force in certain situations. However, there is so far no question of an international legal rule which alone authorizes the use of force, nor in Syria, as some in Norwegian (and British) debate have suggested. For it is the principle for fresh, bfc and it lacks practice that can strengthen its position in international law. If, for debate's sake look away from the purely legal, the extent to which unilateral military actions would be consistent with R2P?
It is proposed bfc six criteria so far in the debate of the UN Security Council should justify military action in another state. To strengthen R2P as international bfc law principles and thus in practical bfc politics bfc we must act in accordance with them.
There is strong evidence bfc that the extreme humanitarian crisis and the use of particularly inhumane chemical weapons against civilians in Syria is just cause to R2P requires. bfc In addition, there must also be spawned by a noble motive. So far, no force in Syria has been justified on grounds to halt or avert human suffering, but with the need to enforce bfc the ban on the use of chemical weapons. There is little evidence that the people of Syria will be better off with more bombing. The good prospects of success in improving the humanitarian situation seems too far away because it is so far little political will to commit substantial resources over time, nor by the United States. On the contrary, several questioned also by limited bombing of densely populated areas violates the criterion of proportionate and necessary force as civilian ports in the firing line. Military bfc intervention is not the last resort in Syria. In practical opened Obama himself for a diplomatic track in the United Nations to get destroyed Syria's chemical weapons.
Although in the short term may be of interest to resort to military means outside the UN, the predictability, peace and security in Syria as well as in the international community services best when covered by clear principles and norms against the use of military force applied.
If the moral arguments bfc prevail alone, it is up to the person who intervenes to determine whether the case is good enough. Russia's entry into Georgia in 2008 is an example that there is a right way to go.
Since the post was written, the Nordic foreign ministers announced that they want to be soldiers for a possible peacekeeping force with a UN mandate. There is currently little evidence to suggest that such a mission is in the works, as long as it is neither a peacekeeping bfc operation in Syria today or political consensus in the Security Council to authorize such a force.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged responsibility to protect, impotence, Bosnia, ethics, UN, UN mandate, the UN Security Council, international law, the Joint Forum, Georgia, Haiti, Iraq, Law, Kosovo, war, Libya, power, military intervention, morality , R2P, Security Council, Somalia, Syria | 3 Comments 3 Responses
Important
Maktbrukens rules are strict for a reason: it's constantly states that exploit loopholes to cover up the aggression. Despite the fact that there has been a relatively small part of the international debate, bfc some in Norway inter alia to the consensus of "responsibility to protect" (R2P) as a possible basis in international law for the use of force in Syria without UN mandate. But those who believe that humanitarian crises should legitimize the use of force to a greater extent, even those who should show the greatest restraint when it comes to military intervention in Syria without grounding in the UN.
International law rules on the use of force or threat of force, is clear: war is prohibited unless there is a UN Security Council bfc mandate or used in self-defense to ward off further attacks against bfc the state or ally. All 193 UN member states have accepted this. International law protects bfc state sovereignty over its own people and their own territories.
During the 1990s, however, the Security Council continued human rights bfc more clearly against the sovereignty principle. The idea was that the world community must have the right to intervene in other states' internal affairs in extreme bfc cases. Council chose to interpret certain humanitarian disasters as a threat to international peace and security and could thereby authorize the use of military force (in northern Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti and later Libya).
NATO's unilateralism in Kosovo, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the diplomatic crisis that followed bfc contributed to the Security Council has limited the expansive dynamic interpretation of its mandate. In 2005, the UN General Assembly nevertheless agree that the world's states have a "responsibility to protect" if people are exposed to serious human rights violations. This principle obliges each State and the international community to protect its citizens against violence as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The principle of R2P ensures moral legitimacy of using military force in certain situations. However, there is so far no question of an international legal rule which alone authorizes the use of force, nor in Syria, as some in Norwegian (and British) debate have suggested. For it is the principle for fresh, bfc and it lacks practice that can strengthen its position in international law. If, for debate's sake look away from the purely legal, the extent to which unilateral military actions would be consistent with R2P?
It is proposed bfc six criteria so far in the debate of the UN Security Council should justify military action in another state. To strengthen R2P as international bfc law principles and thus in practical bfc politics bfc we must act in accordance with them.
There is strong evidence bfc that the extreme humanitarian crisis and the use of particularly inhumane chemical weapons against civilians in Syria is just cause to R2P requires. bfc In addition, there must also be spawned by a noble motive. So far, no force in Syria has been justified on grounds to halt or avert human suffering, but with the need to enforce bfc the ban on the use of chemical weapons. There is little evidence that the people of Syria will be better off with more bombing. The good prospects of success in improving the humanitarian situation seems too far away because it is so far little political will to commit substantial resources over time, nor by the United States. On the contrary, several questioned also by limited bombing of densely populated areas violates the criterion of proportionate and necessary force as civilian ports in the firing line. Military bfc intervention is not the last resort in Syria. In practical opened Obama himself for a diplomatic track in the United Nations to get destroyed Syria's chemical weapons.
Although in the short term may be of interest to resort to military means outside the UN, the predictability, peace and security in Syria as well as in the international community services best when covered by clear principles and norms against the use of military force applied.
If the moral arguments bfc prevail alone, it is up to the person who intervenes to determine whether the case is good enough. Russia's entry into Georgia in 2008 is an example that there is a right way to go.
Since the post was written, the Nordic foreign ministers announced that they want to be soldiers for a possible peacekeeping force with a UN mandate. There is currently little evidence to suggest that such a mission is in the works, as long as it is neither a peacekeeping bfc operation in Syria today or political consensus in the Security Council to authorize such a force.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged responsibility to protect, impotence, Bosnia, ethics, UN, UN mandate, the UN Security Council, international law, the Joint Forum, Georgia, Haiti, Iraq, Law, Kosovo, war, Libya, power, military intervention, morality , R2P, Security Council, Somalia, Syria | 3 Comments 3 Responses
Important
No comments:
Post a Comment