Is President Obama to blame for the current state of Syria? In a word: Yes.
Latest in Intervention
How the impending humanitarian disaster in Aleppo looks against the background of the rationale for intervening in Libya.
Stephen Watts and Sean Mann argue that the United States should continue to invest in Afghanistan's stability following the drawdown of U.S. and NATO forces in order to preserve the modest gains that have been made in Afghanistan and to reduce the chances that the Afghan government will collapse.
The newest installment in the Transatlantic Dialogue series (see here) has gone live at EJIL:Talk!. It is from Sarah Cleveland, and it explains the Project on Harmonizing Standards for Armed Conflict. A taste:
The next installment in the series of posts derived from this summer's Transatlantic Dialogue on International Law and Armed Conflict is now live at the ICRC's Intercross blog. It is from Ken Watkin, and it concerns the overlap of IHL and IHRL. A taste:
In the wake of Thursday’s statements by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey and Friday’s comments by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, it sounds like the U.S. Government is at least considering whether to conduct air strikes against ISIS in Syria. A decision to do so clearly is not a done deal.
Over on CNN’s Global Public Square, I’ve written about recent events in Libya – including the evacuation of American and many foreign diplomats – and what they mean for the Responsibility to Protect. The piece begins:
The question on everyone's lips is whether the United States will use force – most likely air strikes -- in Iraq to help suppress the threat posed by ISIS. Jack, Wells, and Bobby discussed here, here, and here the domestic legal basis for that use of force.
Russian forces have seized control of Crimea and reportedly are digging trenches in the land bridge that connects Crimea with the rest of Ukraine. Is this a flagrant violation of international law regulating the use of force, or does Russia have some credible justification for what it’s done? Bottom Line Up Front (as DOD would say): It appears to be an unjustifiable armed attack on Ukraine, which means that under international law, Ukraine may use force in self-defense against Russia. Here’s the analysis, broken down into steps.
I agree with Jack's analysis of the UK statement.