Those proposing an erosion of the U.N. Charter system in response to the Syrian airstrikes need to consider carefully whether the international legal system is strong enough to make nuanced use-of-force distinctions.
Latest in Syria
To those frustrated with the Syrian atrocities, the inability to legally justify an intervention under the traditional use of force construct is an unconscionable result. But we ignore the wisdom underlying the UN Charter at our own peril.
Is the Administration publicly acknowledging that the law has its limits and that other factors outweighed the constraints of international law in this instance?
For the Chinese government, no principle of international law is more sacrosanct than non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. So why hasn't it yet condemned the U.S. missile strike on Syria?
Trump's airstrikes in Syria represent unilateral presidential war initiation, and the Founders would have unanimously held that the action was unconstitutional.
The Syria intervention is difficult to defend as consistent with international law. The United States has instead begun to make the case that the intervention bears moral legitimacy, using the same kinds of factor-based arguments we saw NATO member states use in Kosovo to defend the legitimacy of their intervention there.
The launch of cruise missiles against a Syrian airbase strikes me more as an attempt at therapy to salve our anguished conscience and feel like we are taking a stand than a serious move to change our policy in Syria for the better.
What legal authority for the use of force will President Trump assert for the missile attack against Syrian forces under domestic and international law?
In an attempt to prosecute senior Syrian security officials in Spain's courts, human rights lawyers are representing a Spanish woman whose brother was allegedly tortured and killed by regime officials.
For years, Syria’s pro-democracy and human rights activists warned the Obama administration about the impact of its repeated statements that it would not intervene in the Syrian conflict come hell or high water. Now it’s the Trump administration’s turn.