Conflict of war is one of the main topics in public international law. In my third year of my LLB law degree I researched on the topic humanitarian intervention specifically focusing on the legality of airstrikes against Syria. This helped me to get good grades in Public International law. This presentation makes it easier for law students to understand certain important concepts and legal terminologies of humanitarian intervention.

1. The legality of airstrikes
against Syria
Presentation: Ayaan Hersi

2. 2017 Shayrat
missile strike
On the morning of 7 April 2017, the
United States launched
59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from
the Mediterranean Sea into Syria,
aimed at Shayrat Airbase controlled
by the Assad Syrian government

4. Donald Trump justification
for the 2017 airstrikes
“It is in this vital national security interest of the United
States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly
chemical weapons.”
“There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical
weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical
Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the UN
Security Council. Years of previous attempts at changing
Assad's behavior have all failed and failed very
dramatically."

5. Syria: US, UK and France
launch strikes in response to
chemical attack
• On the 14 April 2018, the United States, France and
United Kingdom launched military strikes aimed at
reducing Syrian regimes chemical weapons
facilities.
• They claimed that it was in response to the Douma
chemical attack against civilians on 7 April, which
they attributed to the Assad Syrian government.

7. What was
their legal
basis for the
use of force?
The US and France failed to put forward any legal
argument as to the source of their authority to act
under the UN Charter system of the prohibition on the
use of force.
They only spoke on the imperative need to avoid
normalizing the use of chemical weapons
The UK , which, unlike it’s allies, did articulate a clear
legal basis for its use of force .The UK government
states that “The legal basis for the use of force is
humanitarian intervention . . .” and then set three
conditions for such use of force.

8. Humanitarian Intervention
• Meaning: It refers to [alleged] rights of a
State [or group of states] to use force against
another state in order to protect the lives of
persons situated within that state.
• The aim is to stop atrocities such as
genocide, ethnic cleansing, systematic killing,
etc.

9. Legal bases humanitarian intervention: treaty
law?
UN Charter:
Article 50: The United Nations shall promote... Universal respect for, and observance of, human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, religion.
Article 56: All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the
organization for that achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55
Is this enough to overcome Article 2 [4]?

10. Three
conditions;
1)There must be convincing evidence, generally
accepted by the international community as a whole,
of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale,
requiring immediate and urgent relief;
2)It must be objectively clear that there is no
practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are
to be saved ; and
3)The proposed use of force must be necessary and
proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian
suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in
scope to this aim(i.e the minimum necessary to
achieve that end for no other purpose)

11. Condition 1

12. Condition 2

13. Condition 3

14. Prohibition on the
use of force
• Art.2(4) UN Charter: prohibits the
threats or use force by states against
other states.
• The ICJ held that the prohibition on the
use of force is also a principle of
customary international law (Nicaragua
Case 1986).
• Two exceptions to the prohibition of use
of force under the United Nations
Charter.

15. Exceptions to
the
prohibition on
the use of
force
Art. 51: states may use force in
individual or collective self-
defence
Chapter VII: force may also be
authorized by the UN Security
Council to maintain
international peace and security.
Use of force on the territory of a
state that is consented to by the
government of that state will
not be in breach of the
prohibition of the use of force.

16. Is the doctrine of HI an established
principle of CIL?
“The government appears
to suggest that the so-
called doctrine of
“humanitarian
intervention” is an
established principle of
customary international
law, there is very little
support by states for this
legal position.”
(Professor Dapo Akanda)

17. Is HI an established principle
of CIL?
Two elements must be shown:
(1) Is there a general state practice of
humanitarian intervention?
Answer: NO!!!
(2) Has such state practice been accepted as
law? (the requirement of opinion juris)
Answer: NO !!!

18. States views on
humanitarian intervention
• The US (also in 2017) and France advanced no view
on the doctrine of HI nor did they seek to provide
any legal justification for the strikes against the
Syrian government.
• Only Belgium and Denmark supported the UK’s legal
basis for the justification for the use of force
• However, MAJORITY European states have also
refused to endorse a legal principle permitting
humanitarian intervention as an exception to the
prohibition on use of force

20. States reactions to the airstrike attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike#Reactions

21. NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

22. Non-Aligned
Movement,2000
“We reject the so-called
"right" of humanitarian
intervention, which has no
legal basis in the UN Charter
or in the general principles of
international law”
(about 120 States)

23. France and Germany
“President Assad alone carries
responsibility for these developments”
with his “repeated use of chemical
weapons and his crimes against his own
people.”

24. United Kingdom Defence
Minister:
The UK says it “fully supports” the US missile strike in
Syria and has urged Russia to put more pressure on
the Assad regime to end the civil war.
We back the “wholly appropriate” strike.

26. Turkey, Deputy Foreign
Minister
NATO ally Turkey, which is a key player in
the Syria conflict and has endured
choppy relations with Washington
recently, welcomed the strikes as
“positive.”
“We believe that the Assad regime must
be punished completely in the
international arena.”

27. Japan
Japan “supports the
US government’s
resolve that it will
never tolerate the
spread and use of
chemical weapons.”

28. China
Q: Does China consider the missile strike on the Syrian
airbase to be within the scope of international law? Or do
you think it violates existing rules about intervention in
other country’s sovereign territory?
A: The Chinese side has always stood for a political settlement
of the Syrian issue. Under the current circumstances, we hope
all parties can keep calm, exercise restraint and avoid
escalating the tension.
The latest developments in Syria highlight once again the
urgency of resolving the Syrian issue through political means.
We call on all parties not to walk away from the process of
political settlement.

29. Has china changed their view?
“Any unilateral military action violates the United Nations
charter and its principles and international law and its
principles. [The strikes] are also going to add more factors to
complicate the resolution of the Syrian crisis,”
“The Chinese side believes a comprehensive, impartial and
objective investigation should be conducted into the
suspected chemical attacks and it should come up with
reliable conclusions ... Before this, no conclusion by any side
should be made,”

30. Russia and iran on 2017
Russian president’s spokesman,
Dmitry Peskov.
Vladimir Putin views the US
missile strikes on Syria as
“aggression against a sovereign
state in violation of international
law, and under a false pretext,”
Iran’s President
"The man who is now in office in
America claimed that he wanted
to fight terrorism. But today, all
the terrorists in Syria are
celebrating this US attack.
"Why did you help terrorist
groups and support them in your
first move?"

31. Russia
Russia said it was calling an emergency session of the
UN Security Council to discuss the “aggressive actions”
of the United States and its allies
“Without the sanction of the UN Security Council, in
breach of the UN charter and the norms and principles
of international law, an act of aggression was
committed against a sovereign state,” the Kremlin
said..

32. Could R2P been a
better solution?
1. Would R2P had been a
better solution to resolve
the Syrian conflict?
2. Would the SC had been
able to play any
significant part?