INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The Syrian Civil War is perhaps one of the most significant political events in recent world history. It has involved not just the people of one country but also the involvement of the major powers of the world such as the USA and Russia and has triggered one of the worst refugee crises we have witnessed. An ongoing matter of hostility spanning over nearly 9 years as of now, it has created shockwaves in global politics, making it important to be understood as students and now global citizens.
To understand the origins of this situation, we must first look at the players in this Civil War. Primarily, we can establish that there are two sides to this like any war. The established government under the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad and the rebels against the regime which found their cause in the Arab Spring, a wave of pro-democracy protests and uprisings that began in 2010 and 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa, challenging some of the region’s entrenched authoritarian regimes[1]. This wave of protests in 2011 was brutally suppressed by Assad and soon there was military intervention across the Country for the same. The rebels were also joined by defectors from the Syrian army who formed the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in a refugee camp in Turkey[2]. Assad also used chemical weapons to his advantage in this protest that had escalated into a full-blown Civil War[3]. Later, in 2012, it was reported that a faction of the Al-Qaeda had joined the rebels in their fight to overthrow the government. The next year, this would break away from Al-Qaeda to form the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
One of the key aspects that differentiates this Civil War from others is the role of other countries and their interests. After the use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad, the USA attempted to condemn the action at the UN, where the condemnation was vetoed by Russia. It was soon after, that it was reported that the US was planning to train rebel forces to fight the government along with arming them[4]. This plan, however, failed.Iran was also an important ally of Assad here who provided support to the government in the international community. Hezbollah, a Palestinian organization was also requested by Iran to support the government in 2012. Meanwhile, Syria was removed from the Arab League, which turned to the side of the rebels. Oil-rich countries of Saudi Arabia and Qatar showered the Kurdish rebels and the rebels in Southern Syria with financial aid[5].
While ISIS grew, the world simply spectated as it enlarged into a State itself after conquering oil-rich areas of Iraq and Syria. This called for global action against the Islamic State from the UN. This was also soon after the horrendous Ghouta chemical attack took place in 2013 where civilians were brutally attacked by the Assad regime, killing an estimated 913 people in the neighborhoods of Ghouta[6]. ISIS has contributed to some heinous terrorist attacks in various European countries which had directed global attention from Assad’s atrocities to ISIS. Russia and the US both had now focussed on destroying the Islamic State. While Russia, entering Syria with the presented intention to bomb ISIS, now only bombed anti-Assad rebels.
A major international fallout of this war is the refugee crisis that ensued. In 2015 alone, 1,014,836 people made it into the EU zone by sea routes, and 3,771 either went missing or had died while entering the EU[7]. The Civil War also managed to trigger the largest refugee crisis of the 21st Century. Most of these refugees went to the nearby European nations, some of whom greeted them with welcoming cheers, some with xenophobia. In further sections of this article, we shall look at how the bi-products of the Syrian Civil War caused a change in Public International Law regarding warfare and refugees.
IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL LAW:
The fact that the Syrian Civil War is a major international event is no secret but one may wonder its implications on International Law. The chief concerns we will be addressing in the perspective of International Law are presented as follows:
- Right of Self-Defense:
The concept of Jus ad Bellum is a set of criteria that is to be fulfilled to enter into a war by a country. It refers to the conditions in which States may resort to war or the general use of armed force[8]. One of the exceptions to this principle is the Right of Self-Defence which a country has. This right implies that States have an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against itself[9]. This exercise must be necessary, proportional, and immediate to the aggression and that no practicable alternative means of redress is available to the State exercising it collectively or individually.
The peculiarity in the conflict occurs when we observe that neither Iraq or Syria had acted outside their territories but had instead invited other States to act as a collective on their behalf. Here, the US, Russia, Germany, Israel,UK, and other countries can be seen to have been acting on behalf of the Syrian government to fight against the extremist organization ISIS. Secondly, whether the use of force by ISIS and other paramilitary organizations on behalf of the rebels would constitute armed aggression. It was held in a landmark case law in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that armed aggression may also include actions by “regular armed forces” as well as “the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed groups or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such severity as to amount to an armed attack conducted by regular forces”[10].
Acts done by ISIS can sufficiently qualify as an armed attack as per the above definition but whether ISIS was acting on behalf of any State is false. ISIS, on the other hand, wanted to establish a State for itself. Here, it was argued by the USA and the UK had that a right of self-defense exists and they may act upon it. We also have precedents in the form of the Lotus Case where Justice Moore presented a strong dissent where he stated that a State is entitled to exercise due diligence to prevent the commission of criminal acts against another nation or its citizens within its jurisdiction[11]. Syria has thus been turned into a medium to attack and control territories of Iraq and the Syrian government can seemingly do nothing about it, thus justifying US actions in the light of the above principles.
- Consent to Act on Behalf of the State:
It is an acknowledged principle in the International Community as envisaged under the Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Actsthat “valid consent by a State to the commission of a given act by another State precludes the wrongfulness of that act concerning the former State to the extent that the act remains within the limits of that consent.[12]” In the Syrian Civil War, we have observed that Iraq had given consent to the United States to act on its behalf, and Syria had done the same with Russia. Like the concept of consent in common law, the same conditions limit the use of consent in International Law as well. It must be freely given in the absence of any coercion or intimidation, it must be secured by the party seeking the said consent before acting upon it and that it must be expressed.
When we examine the scenario closely, we see that Syria had not given consent to any State, other than Russia to act against ISIS on its territory. The USA and other countries seemingly are said to have obtained the implied consent of Syria in their fight against ISIS. The question that arises here is whether the US and countries other than Russia had the right to conduct military activities on Syrian soil without express and explicit consent. It was held in the Armed Activities case that a consent to let troops be stationed existed despite there being no formal agreement for the same[13].
Syria has shown discontent with the use of force in its territory by the US and other countries acting without its express consultation[14]. The Syrian government has sent letters to the Security Council stating that any such action by another State in its territory without consultation with the Syrian government shall be deemed to be an act against its sovereignty[15]. The Assad government is currently the legal government in Syria at the moment but its continuous violations of International Law do take away the higher ground it seems to have in the international community.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
The Syrian Civil War is not something suffered only by the Syrians, Iraqis, and the rest of the Arab countries but by the whole world. It has made us realize that humanity is equally capable of evil as it is capable of good. This civil war has displaced millions from their homes and has now made them live in countries where they are treated like sub-human citizens. It has created new revelations in the exercise of International Laws. The conflict, as of 2020, continues to persist although, now ISIS operations have slowed down with the deaths of many of its leaders, it has now slowed down. Global efforts have now concentrated on tackling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and it has also been suggested by the Secretary-General of the UN, that an immediate and complete ceasefire be established in the light of several deaths that are now occurring in Syria due to the disease[16].
We do not know when the conflict will cease but one thing can be ascertained that any transition that Syria wouldface will have to go through severalhindrances on the way to achieve sustainable peace. The challenge will be what Syria wants to do with those who could have committed past massacres, like Assad, leaders of its military and security forces, and some of the rebel groups who have also committed war crimes[17]. Will we get to see a repeat of Yugoslavia or will we see something revolutionary and new in International Criminal Law. What can be expected is a far-ranging topic in itself. To conclude, I would like to quote the former Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain.
In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers.
By-
Shivam Mulik
[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Arab Spring: Pro-Democracy Protests https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Spring
[2] Joseph Holliday, Institute for the Study of War, Middle East Security
Report 3: Syria’s Armed Opposition (Mar. 2012),
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Syrias_Armed_Opposition.pdf.
[3] U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic(2011)
[4] Jamie Dettmer, Unreliable Syrian Recruits for an Unworkable Obama Army to Fight ISIS, Daily Beats, Jul. 7, 2015
[5] Zack Beauchamp, Syria’s Civil War: A Brief History, Vox, Oct. 2, 2015 https://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9319293/syrian-refugees-civil-war
[6] Human Rights Watch, Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria, Sept. 10, 2013 https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria
[7]UNHCR ReportMediterranean Sea arrivals from January 2018, https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
[8] International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law: Answers to your Questions(2015)
[9] Article 51, Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII (1945)
[10]The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America1986 I.C.J. 14
[11]S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey) 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, at 88 (Sept. 7, 1927) (Moore, J., dissenting)
[12] Article 20, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001)
[13]Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo(Congo, the Democratic Republic of the v Uganda)[2005] ICJ Rep 168
[14] Syria Offers to Help Fight ISIS but Warns Against Unilateral Air Strikes, GUARDIAN (Aug. 26, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/syria-offers-to-help-fight-isis-but-warns-against-unilateral-air-strikes
[15] Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the U.N., Identical letters dated Sept. 17, 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2015/719 (Sep. 21, 2015)
[16] UN News, Syria: As Coronavirus Threat Intensifies, Ceasefire More Urgent Than Ever, (Apr. 29, 2020) https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062862
[17] Paul J. Zwier, Social Media and Conflict Mapping in Syria: Implications for Peacemaking, International Criminal Prosecutions and for TRC Processes, Emory International Law Review, Vol. 30, Issue 2 (2015)
Previous post: https://desikanoon.in/exceptions-to-the-principle-of-volenti-non-fit-injuria/