The Threat to Attack Syria Is STILL Illegal

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/13-3


A protestor stands outside the U.S. embassy in Syria in demonstration against possible attacks by the United States. (Photo: AHMAD YUSNI/EPA)

Unless President Obama would like to risk seeing Syria, at some point in the future, renounce its signature on the chemical weapons convention, which it has recently pledged to sign under the threat of attack by the United States, he should rescind the threat of force. This is because Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “Coercion of a State by Threat or Use of Force,” stipulates: “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.”

Whether or not this means that Syria’s signing and ratifying the chemical weapons ban under an illegal threat of force would be invalid, it is clearly the case that the president’s threat of force is illegal under international law.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits “the threat or use of force” by states. Thus, both “threat” and “use” are prohibited. The only exceptions are the resort to force as national “self-defense” in response to an “armed attack,” or a threat or use of force pursuant to an authorizing resolution from the UN Security Council.

President Obama and high-ranking officials in his administration have repeatedly threatened to bomb Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons inside Syria. Even assuming that the government of Syria is the party responsible for the use of chemical weapons—a fact that has not yet been established—the use of chemical weapons in Syria does not constitute an armed attack on the United States. And the UN Security Council to date has not authorized the use of force against Syria. Under this set of circumstances, President Obama has illegally threatened to use force.

[MNBrewer]

1. Yes, it is. And regardless of whether it is all part of the "Chess Game", it makes Obama

look like a loose cannon.

[idwiyo]

2. K&R

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Possibly true, but not important.

International law is not worth the paper it's printed on, sadly, and should be ignored when doing so is the right thing to do.

In this case it isn't, but the fact that attacking Syria would probably be a mistake is nothing to do with the fact that it is (or might be - I'm not an expert) illegal.

[Downwinder]

4. Louis D. Brandeis

Our government teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. The threats of violence are themselves illegal. We are party to treaties that

say so. Forget the specifics of this case, in general one nation using threats to impose it's will on another nation is call 'an act of war'. It is not diplomacy it is military action. It would be an awful world if that sort of thing was acceptable, blackmail that it is.
It is easy to win a negotiation if you show up to talks armed to the teeth and taking pot shots. But the fact is that is not negotiation, it is armed robbery. It's easy to 'win an election'

[woo me with science]

5. Thank you.

[woo me with science]

7. Thank you.