Syrian Crisis: Morality Of War And Jungle Law

Morality and law are closely related, but is there a link between morality, law, and war?

The morality of dropping large quantities of high explosives on cities is debateable, but if there were no "laws of war" then, leaving morality to one side, legally there would be no difference between shooting people and gassing them.

As we know, there are "laws of war" - the Geneva Conventions, the treaties on chemical weapons, and others.

Gassing people clearly breaks those laws. Does it therefore follow that action can then be taken by outside actors under international law?

Here it gets complicated.

Firstly you have to prove which side broke the law.

In the Syrian example, the US, the UK, and France say they are certain the Assad regime is responsible.

So far the hard evidence has not been produced, and those three countries are using the "common sense" argument - that it is obvious President Bashar Assad's forces used chemical weapons.

Smoke over Baghdad after US-led air raids in 2003

For various reasons Russia, and others, fail to see the "common sense" view and will therefore block any country which tries to get a legally binding UN Security Council resolution authorising action against Syria. 

This leaves taking action without the UN.

The Russians and others will argue that this would be illegal and tantamount to the law of the jungle in which any state can attack another on a pretext without proof or international agreement.

Moscow is already citing the Iraq fiasco to bolster this view.

If it comes to action, albeit limited, the British, French and Americans are likely to fall back on a number of arguments to legitimise the use of force. 

Among them are the breaking of the Geneva Conventions, various treaties reacting to chemical weapons which date all the way back to 1925, and a concept known as R2P - Responsibility to Protect.

In 1999 US President Bill Clinton justified the bombing of Serbia on the grounds of the moral responsibility to protect large numbers of civilians.

He assembled the Nato countries to give "international cover" on what was a US-led operation.

In 2005, the UN adopted R2P as an "international norm" but there is fierce debate about whether it can be invoked without a UN Security Council resolution.

Bill Clinton sanctioned the bombing of Serbia in the 90s on moral grounds

This brings us to the credibility issue.

If the Western countries really believe in R2P, and more importantly wish to be able to really influence events, then if a red line has been crossed, it could be argued they have to intervene in Syria whether or not they get legal cover. 

Failure to do so, it will be argued, will embolden dictators and strong men around the world.

They will act in the most heinous manner with impunity having seen the US's pronouncements as those of a paper tiger.

Iran, North Korea, and China are all watching with keen interest.

At this point, the lines of legality, and to a lesser extent morality, begin to blur and we are into theory.

For example, it would be argued that failure to act now will mean pain later, that future foreign policy will be negatively affected, that international coalitions would begin to fray, and that the real law of the jungle would be ushered in. 

It would also be stated that the standing of the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful armed forces would be diminished.

None of this is provable today as they are predictions of the future - but the argument is real.

In the White House this week they are debating law, morality, war, and an equally powerful concept in international relations - credibility.

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

Syrian Crisis: Morality Of War And Jungle Law

Dengan url

http://plumpangraya.blogspot.com/2013/08/syrian-crisis-morality-of-war-and.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

Syrian Crisis: Morality Of War And Jungle Law

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

Syrian Crisis: Morality Of War And Jungle Law

sebagai sumbernya