3. Nature of the Problem
Like other failed airstrikes, Syria also suffered huge losses. As a
result, there are a significant number of causalities. These
airstrikes are also fueling immense refugee crisis, United States
claims that these airstrikes are carried out with the sole purpose of
restoration of peace. It is done on humanitarian grounds for the
larger good. On the other hand, peace is still in doldrums
A Brief History of Airstrikes
The history of airstrikes can be traced
back to the times when the state of
Venice declared independence from
the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In
retaliation, the Austro-Hungarian
Empire launched around 200 hot air
balloons, towards Venice, with bombs
installed
Problem Statement
The purpose is to evaluate the
legality of these strikes in the eyes of
international law based on their
outcome
Background
With the evolution in human cultures, the pattern
of conflicts transformed into wars. Nation-state
system, on the other hand, further formalized the
nature of wars. Technology played a significant
role in this regard. Nations with more
sophisticated weapons started to take leading
positions in wars, Airstrikes remained at the core
of these interventions
Introduction
4. Literature Review
Limited use of force and international
interventions are contested subjects. The
literature takes divergent stances
Firstly, the hegemonic states are bound to
intervene in the affairs of other states as
custodians of order. The Austrian empire
in Europe intervened many times to
protect the Church and their interests in
the name of maintaining order.
Secondly, Barad states that nuclearization
has limited the use of force. Limited
achievements from full-scale war have also
led to limited use of force. The Vietnam
failure has also inclined states towards
limited use of force. The powerful states are
constrained to pursue their interests in a
limited way.
The international law experts in these states
stressed the relative nature of human rights
and international obligations. According to
them, use of force against other states was
illegal as international law was clear on
supremacy of state soverignty
5. Continued…
Van Der Vyver has elaborated on how the United
States has used humanitarian law to justify its
strategic goals. The Nicaragua case is an example of
the wrong use of humanitarian law. The United States
intervened and used force to bring down the
government.
The Biden government is considering targeted
airstrikes and limited use of force to achieve strategic
goals against the Iranians.
Anderson was of opinion that the intervention in Syria
was legal. The United States had a moral duty to
intervene in Syria in the face of consistent human
rights violations by the Assad regime. Therefore, it
did not do wrong by intervening according to the
responsibility to protect principles and international
humanitarian law. What could have protected the
Syrian people in the face of oppression by their
government?
The United States continued to do the operation in
Syrian territories. The intervention increased under
Donald Trump
6. Based on the particular research question, the research can be
deduced to a null and an alternate hypothesis. The null
hypothesis here is the illegality of airstrikes in Syria in
accordance with international law. On the other hand, the
alternate hypothesis is the legality of these strikes based on the
USA’s claims.
Hypothesis
7. The topic deals with a highly contested
issue. Although existing sources can guide
the direction of the research however, it
demands a full-fledged exploration. Hence
the exploratory research style would be
employed in this study
Exploratory research style
This complex set of qualitative data needs
immense attention and careful analysis. To
carry out this sensitive task, thematic
analysis may prove to be the best-suited
option for data analysis
Thematic analysis
Case study method is one of the
cornerstones of qualitative research
Case study method
For the purpose of this study, the major
sources of data would be secondary, The
main sources would be published articles,
reports, conference proceedings and books
Qualitative data analysis
To gain a holistic picture of the situation,
statistical data can also be incorporated in
the research
Statistical data
01
02
03
04
05
Methodology
8. Limitations of the Study
Secondly, the research could be
conducted from the perspective of United
States VS international law, but the
argument of other parties involved could
not be taken easily. The marginalized
segments of any society face the true
atrocities of war. On the other hand, their
voice is rarely heard. In the context of this
research too, the voices of the most
vulnerable segments of the society,
especially women, could not be given
due importance.
This research would employ a variety of
secondary sources. A comprehensive set
of data would be extracted from these
sources however, several primary data
sources would be absent from this study.
There are multiple actors involved in the
problem to be studies. It would be
impractical to state that all the
stakeholders could be taken on board.
9. The United States defend its airstrikes on the basis of
international law of defense. On the other hand, it is considered
a clear violation of international law from several interpretations
by legal experts. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the
legality of these strikes based on their articulated objectives.
Research
Question
10. Organization of the Study
Hypothesis of the study helps this
research question to be answered in a
practical way. This research question and
hypothesis shed light on the purpose of
the study and subsequent limitations.
This sections leads to the nature of the problem
which is the evaluation of the airstrikes in light of
international law. Existing literature provides a
comprehensive picture to support the arguments of
both sides. In the light of this literature, problem of
the study is transformed into a logical research
question
These airstrikes are part of limited scale
force which emerged as a rational option
after the advent of nuclear weapons
The present study starts with the
introduction of the topic. It includes the
background of airstrikes and concludes
at the present context of airstrikes in
Syria
Background
History of conflicts among humans can be traced back to the inception of civilization. From the time of hunter-gatherers, fight for the acquisition and distribution of resources shape the course of history. With the evolution in human cultures, the pattern of conflicts transformed into wars. Nation-state system, on the other hand, further formalized the nature of wars. Technology played a significant role in this regard. Nations with more sophisticated weapons started to take leading positions in wars. Western nations, specifically, acquired key positions in some of the biggest wars history has ever seen. These nations have always remained at the forefront of modern weapons. Western nations remained the epicentre of some of the most devastating wars of all times. Hence the use of military force can best be seen from western perspective. European powers along with United States also made several military interventions with claims of “larger good”. Airstrikes remained at the core of these interventions. These airstrikes have always been considered the most effective strategy in use of force at limited scale.
A Brief History of Airstrikes
During the last 100 years, the history of wars has seen the development of airstrikes. Airstrike can be defined as the ability to destroy things, with a high degree of choice over timing and location. It is often associated with the successful achievements of national objectives in war (Meilinger, 2000). The history of airstrikes can be traced back to the times when the state of Venice declared independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In retaliation, the Austro-Hungarian Empire launched around 200 hot air balloons, towards Venice, with bombs installed. This could be called the inception of airstrikes. Although the mission was not able to achieve its desired goals, it leads the world towards later developments. In 1911, during the Italo-Turkish war, an Italian pilot dropped four bombs on bases in Libya (Gregory, 2015). That was the start of air bombings using aeroplanes.
The use of the term “airstrike” is often associated with the Second World War. The Germans used some advanced technology during the war. This era also witnessed the start of guided missiles. Later on, the invention of nuclear weapons attracted more attention. As soon as the world realized the catastrophic effects of nuclear weapons, the use of force at limited scale became the norm and use of airstrikes emerged as a leading tactic.
Nature of the Problem
After the end of cold war, the world order became unipolar in which US emerged as the sole superpower. US, along with its allies, became the champion of democracy. Since then, US assumed the charge of a so called “global policeman”. Realist approach tells that the global system is anarchic. This anarchy creates a lot of vacuum. Once the world moved from bi-polar to unipolar, US started to fill the power vacuum. To promote democratic values around the globe, it started military interventions.
Military interventions are often attached with humanitarian purposes. The basic rationale behind military intervention is restoration of peace and democracy (Dembinski et al., 2019). With this rationale, United States intervened in many regions. There are many dimensions to look into this issue. Firstly, there is a realist view that puts emphasis on the hegemonic ambitions of major powers. United States is again in the limelight in this regard. According to this view, military interventions are linked with neo-colonial sentiments. Secondly, these interventions are closely linked with the strategic culture. The strategic culture of US compels it to go for military interventions. Military interventions are also called use of force at limited scale. In a limited scale use of force, the purpose is narrow. One party go with clearly defined objectives and specific targets.
Middle East and south Asian region remained at the centre of these interventions. One of the most prominent examples of this intervention is Iraq war 2003. During this military intervention, US took the stance as the saviour of democratic forces in Iraq. Prior to this, US used limited scale force against Iraq during the Iraq-Kuwait war which is also called gulf war. This military intervention was heavily relied on airstrikes. “Operation Desert Storm”, for example, was a sophisticated military intervention based on airstrikes (Tucker-Jones, 2014). This operation created a level playing field for Kuwait and pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Syria is another Arab country who witnessed the wrath of a devastating war and airstrikes in recent times. There is a civil war in Syria between two factions. On one side, there are government forces backed by US and west. On the other hand, there are separatist groups backed by Iran. There is a situation of proxy war in which foreign actors are playing their roles.
Before getting into the impacts of these airstrikes, it is important to recall that these strikes are causing some irreversible damages to the infrastructure as well as the human loss. According to some pentagon records, the strikes did not meet accuracy on various occasions. Like other failed airstrikes, Syria also suffered huge losses. As a result, there are a significant number of causalities. These airstrikes are also fuelling immense refugee crisis.
Every party in this war has a legal and or moral justification on its part; however, the most appropriate way to look into the issue is through the lens of international law. United States takes justification from the international law of self-defence. Recently, it carried out an airstrike in Syria in which several people died and there was a severe loss of infrastructure as well. According to pentagon, this airstrike has been carried out in response to the rocket attack at Erbil airport in Iraq that resulted in the killing of Filipino and American contractors. It is a clear American stance that it can take lawful military action against the ongoing threats. The counter voice, on the other hand, considered the Syrian airstrikes as a grave violation of international law. According to Notre Dame law school professor, Mary Ellen O’Connel “The United Nations Charter makes absolutely clear that the use of military force on the territory of a foreign sovereign state is lawful only in response to an armed attack on the defending state for which the target state is responsible. None of those elements is met in the Syrian strikes (O'Connell, 2018). This statement echoes the surety of human rights by the United Nations. Every nation is equal on the face of the earth. The violation of the sovereignty of any state is in contradiction with the international law.
Another major aspect of the military interventions, particularly the airstrikes, is their outcome. United States claims that these airstrikes are carried out with the sole purpose of restoration of peace. It is done on humanitarian grounds for the larger good. On the other hand, peace is still in doldrums. The humanitarian crisis in Syria is making the situations worse. It is therefore a matter of immense importance to look into the aftermath of airstrikes in the light of international law. These strikes can only be considered lawful if they result in the enhancement of peace and prosperity for the Syrian people and the world at large.
Problem Statement
In modern war tactics, use of force at a limited scale has become a norm in international arena. Countries like the United States are the epitome of this use of force. Airstrikes are at the face of this force. There is a long history of these airstrikes. In recent times, airstrikes in Syria are gaining much attention. The United States is at the forefront of these strikes. USA claims that these airstrikes are carried out the purpose to restore peace. On the other hand, huge catastrophes are attached with these airstrikes. A significant number of common people have lost their lives during the strikes. At the same time, there is a huge loss in terms of infrastructure. Refugee crisis is also a product of airstrikes in Syria. United States takes a defending position in this regard. It is always claimed from the States authorities that these strikes are conducted in response to the militant actions. There is a strong counter voice that negates these claims on legal as well as moral grounds. In this situation, international law becomes the ultimate source of guidance. The purpose is to evaluate the legality of these strikes in the eyes of international law based on their outcome
