Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?
The Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria and the US attack.
On Thursday 6 April 2017, the US carried out a missile strike in Syria. It did so in response to the chemical attack which had taken place two days earlier in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, in the rebel-controlled part of the Idlib province, killing 80 and seriously injuring more than 200 civilians.
On Thursday 6 April 2017, the US carried out a missile strike in Syria. It did so in response to the chemical attack which had taken place two days earlier in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, in the rebel-controlled part of the Idlib province, killing 80 and seriously injuring more than 200 civilians. The chemical attack has been uniformly condemned. The US attack, on the contrary, has attracted not only criticism but also statements of support and of praise. This is surprising provided that the two attacks both constitute a clear violation of some of the most fundamental norms of the international legal order. And that the latter attack may potentially threaten the stability of this order, and the values it protects, not less than the former one.
Any instance of the use of chemical weapons as well as any instance of the use of chemical substances against civilian population, is a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL), the branch of international law applying in armed conflicts and seeking to somehow humanize these conflicts. These instances also amount to war crimes, giving rise to individual criminal responsibility of the individuals who have carried out, planned or ordered the attack.
Nevertheless, as far as the use of force is concerned, the whole system of the current international law is based on its prohibition. It allows only for two exceptions – the UN collective actions and individual or collective self-defence. Despite the evident violation of IHL, presumably committed by the Syrian armed forces, contemptible as it was, the US attack on Syria does not fall under either of the two exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force. Therefore, there are questions to be answered: Wasn´t there any other, more appropriate measure how to respond to these atrocities? And should this attack be tolerated (or even welcomed), while at the same time the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians was seriously condemned, although the both cases represent a clear violation of the international law?
Full ILR available here.
Nahoru
Tomáš Profant
Vladislav Strnad