The guardian.com - Leading experts in international law have attacked the government's legal case for military strikes against Syria, warning it "does not set out a sound or persuasive legal argument" and fails to prove that all other avenues to avoid further chemical weapons attacks have been exhausted.
Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London, said the argument set out on Thursday by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, "is premised on factual assumptions – principally that the weapons were used by the Syrian government, that the use of force by the UK would deter or disrupt the further use of chemical weapons – that are not established on the basis of information publicly available".
Grieve's justification, set out in just over a page of arguments, claims military action would be legal "under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention" and that even "if action in the [UN] security council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime".
Sands said that in the absence of the UK invoking any right of self-defence or a UN security council resolution authorising force, the coalition's case is premised on a legal argument about humanitarian intervention that is controversial but could be available under certain conditions.
"However," Sands said, "as the facts are not made out, the note does not set out a sound or persuasive legal argument. If Iraq teaches us anything, it is that parliament must insist on seeing the full legal advice, caveats and all, and the full evidential basis on the key factual issues before proceeding to take any decision."
The government claim in its legal note that it is allowed to use strikes to "deter and disrupt" the further use of chemical weapons is also too lax, according to Dapo Akande, co-director of the Oxford institute for ethics, law and armed conflict.
"Even if there is a rule allowing intervention to avert a humanitarian catastrophe that rule would not simply permit action to deter and disrupt use of chemical weapons," Akande said. "This standard is too lax. It would be a rule about preventing and about stopping. The UK is not proposing to take action which will actually prevent or stop further uses of chemical weapons."
Grieve said the UK could legitimately take military action to "alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe" as long as three conditions are met. That there is "convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief"; it is "objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved"; and the proposed use of force is "proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need".
Akande said the case falls down on the second point because there are still avenues to be explored.
"There are measures that the UK/US have not yet tried, for example trying to get approval from the UN general assembly under the 'uniting for peace' procedure," he said. "This would allow the general assembly to take action in cases where the security council is blocked by threat or use of the veto". He also said "action could be taken to refer the matter to the international criminal court – which is also action to deter further uses".
Akande added that when the attorney general's advice says international law allows Britain to take measures to alleviate a humanitarian catastrophe without security council approval, this can only be in reference to customary international law which is based on the "views and practices of states".
He said there is "very little evidence of state support for this view. Indeed most states have explicitly rejected this view."
The legal advice was published at the same time as a British intelligence assessment that concluded it was "highly likely" that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks in Syria last week.
5 comments:
Snap summary
To recap - here are the main points.
• MPs have voted down a government attempt to secure provisional authorisation for military intervention in Syria.
• David Cameron has said he will respect the decision, and not order an attack.
Yes indeed! The people ask Cameron where is your proof that Assad did it and not the "rebels" that you are itching to cause carnage? Just look at past evidence:
US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government in early 2013:
On 29 January 2013 Daily Mail disclosed leaked evidence from a US defence contractor that Washington had approved plan for use of chemical weapons in order to blame it on Assad.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-backed-plan-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-and-blame-it-on-assad-government/5346907
In May 2013 Turkey found a 2kg nerve gas canister from the hide out of Al-Nusra "rebels" who planned to fit it in a rocket:
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/
Russia also presented evidence to UN that the rebels has used chemical weapons and UN concluded the same.
In May 2013 UN's senior official Carla Del Ponte said evidence suggested that Syrian rebels 'used Sarin'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
And the Syrian government announced last week they found chemical weapons in "rebel" tunnels.
The international community should remember the "Iraqi WMD" hoax in which over a million were slaughtered, and be vigilant not to be hoodwinked to allow such crimes against humanity be committed again in their names by immoral and corrupt politicians.
Not in my name!
Write to your MPs and object to UK government's illegal and immoral planned involvement in bombing and more blood bath in Syria.
David has recalled parliament to discuss the ongoing crisis in Syria so in similar fashion I'm bringing this week's PMQs forward before his day in the House. I personally feel that 'necessary measures to protect civilians' entails the likes of emergency medical supplies and gas-masks for example. If that requires military support then so be it, but is far more likely to gain UN backing. Whether or whenever exercised, international arrest warrants should also be issued once culpability for use of chemical weapons is established. Notwithstanding his second pointless recall of parliament in straitened times, my questions today lay with David's governance.
"Although you have power to act with ministerial backing, before the summer recess you were pressed to recall parliament before military action against Syria; indeed you've said a parliamentary vote isn't binding. Albeit you seem to have retreated somewhat yesterday, why is this government policy, Dave, and not a free vote? Are you, and Nick I suppose, using party whips to create the illusion of wider support? Have you already made up your mind whatever the outcome?"
"You've been holding meetings of the National Security Council, primarily MPs with some military and intelligence agency advisors, yet in your own words you've previously said of the military, 'I tell you what, you do the fighting and I'll do the talking'. So what role have the military played in decision making, Dave? Are they influential or purely advising on operational matters? Have your own thoughts or conversations with Obama taken precedence? We should be told."
LONDON—British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a preliminary vote on Syria, an early sign of the pushback Western governments may face as they prepare to launch an attack.
Thursday evening's vote was nonbinding, but in practice the rejection of military strikes means Mr. Cameron's hands are tied. In a terse statement to Parliament, Mr. Cameron said it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action.
Facing vocal opposition from politicians and the public, Mr. Cameron had told parliament earlier that military action was justified on humanitarian grounds and the need to prevent the use of chemical weapons in Syria. He said the case for action wasn't about taking sides in the Syrian conflict or about changing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
U.K. PM Cameron loses Syria war vote
By Seth McLaughlin - The Washington Times
The British House of Commons rejected a proposal from British Prime Minister David Cameron that would have paved the way for British military action against Syria — effectively ending the nation’s chances of getting involved in a US-led strike against President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Post a Comment