As I noted in an earlier post, the newly emerging uses of multi-lateral military force for humanitarian intervention — such as to respond to states that gas their own citizens — raise profound issues about the relationship between “the rule of (international) law” and morality/political judgment. Under existing international law, it is difficult to justify legally use of military force against Syria; there is no self-defense justification and no approval from the Security Council. And try to imagine the process of revising the governing legal text — the UN Charter — to permit force in new circumstances not contemplated when the Charter was created.
National political leaders in these situations have three options.
First, they can conclude, with tragic sorrow, that even though they believe the most compelling moral and political reasons exist for using military force, they cannot act because international law prohibits it: military force would be illegal.
Second, they (and notice, of course, the prior question of who the “they” are, or must be, to justify this) can acknowledge that they are violating international law, but that they believe their actions are justified for reasons more important than the “rule of law.” ...
...
Third, they can do what the British government now appears to be doing: turn the compelling moral reasons in which they believe into new “legal” justifications for the use of force. This creates a kind of illusion (perhaps necessary, perhaps justified) that they are complying with existing international law — when the truer account is that they are creating new legal arguments outside the framework of existing law. ...
Originally Posted by AdamG
). But what the hell, he's been to Syria, so maybe he should formulate our policy for the way ahead (
)
Bookmarks