How russian intervention in syria redefined the right to protect in armed conflict
The use of military force to forestall humanitarian crisis remains a controversial issue in international law. This strategy is considered antithetical to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the host country. This legal quandary emanated in 1998 after NATO launched a series of airstrikes against the Yugoslavian forces under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. This legal conundrum prompted the United Nations to craft comprehensive legal principles to determine the parameters of foreign interventions in armed conflict. The objective was realised in 2005 after the UN adopted the Right to Protect (R2P) as means of resolving humanitarian crisis. This doctrine intended to harmonise the foreign intervention in light of the shortcomings of unilateral humanitarian intervention. However, the abysmal failure in resolving the Libyan crisis exposed its soft underbelly as tool for perpetuating regime change against unpopular leaders. Subsequently, when Security Council proposed similar remedy for Syrian conflict, Russia strenuously objected and advocated for a political and diplomatic solution. This geopolitical gridlock prompted the divided council to adopt a different scenario in dealing with the Syrian conflict with the west supporting the rebels while Russia stood by Assad. This prompted Assad to appeal for assistance from Russia in counteracting ISIS and rebel forces that threatened to depose his government. In 2017 President Putin announced the success of the Russian intervention and called for peace talks among the various warring factions. As such Russia had realised the humanitarian objective behind R2P while respecting the sovereignty of Syria.
About the AuthorJoseph Lutta
Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, Partner at Musinga & Company Advocates
P.O. Box 1447-30100, Eldoret, Kenya
1. Bartman C.S. Lawfare and the Definition of Aggression: What the Soviet Union and Russian Federation Can Teach Us, 43(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 423 (2010).
2. Blum Y.Z. Russia Takes Over the Soviet Union’s Seat at the United Nations, 3 European Journal of International Law 354 (1992).
3. Cole J. The Congo Question: Conflicting Visions of Independence, 43(1) Emporia State Research Studies 26 (2006).
4. Duffy M.J. Arab Media Regulations: Identifying Restraints on Freedom of the Press in the Laws of Six Arabian Peninsula Countries, 6 Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Law 1 (2014).
5. Emerson S. The Lockerbie Terrorist Attack and Libya: A Retrospective Analysis, 36(2) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 487 (2004).
6. Franck T.M. Who Killed Article 2(4)? Or: Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States, 64(5) American Journal of International Law 809 (1970).
7. Garwood-Gowers A. The Responsibility to Protect and the Arab Spring: Libya as the Exception, Syria as the Norm?, 36(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 594 (2013).
8. Goh A. & Freeland S. The International Court of Justice and Recent Orders on Provisional Measures, 11 Australian Journal of International Law 47 (2004).
9. Goodman R. Humanitarian Intervention and Pretexts for War, 100(1) American Journal of International Law 107 (2006).
10. Gray C. The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases Concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua, 14(5) European Journal of International Law 867 (2013).
11. Guiora A.N. Intervention in Libya, Yes; Intervention in Syria, No: Deciphering the Obama Administration, 44 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 251 (2011).
12. Hafkin G. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008: Developing the Law of Unauthorized Humanitarian Intervention after Kosovo, 28 Boston University Law Journal 219 (2010).
13. Hobbs N. The UN and the Congo Crisis of 1960, Harvey M. Applebaum ’59 Award, Paper 6 (2014).
14. Joyner D.H. The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and a More Persuasive Paradigm, 13 European Journal of International Law 597 (2002).
15. Kaim M. & Tamminga O. Russia’s Military Intervention in Syria, SW P Comment 2015/C 48 (November 2015).
16. King H.T. Jr. et al. Origins of the Genocide Convention, 40(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 13 (2007).
17. Kingsbury B. & Weiler J.H.H. Preface: Studying the Armed Activities Decision, 40(1) International Law & Politics 1 (2008).
18. Koh H.H. Why Do Nations Obey International Law?, 106(8) Yale Law Journal 2559 (1997).
19. Kohen M. The Principle of Non-Intervention 25 Years after the Nicaragua Judgment, 25(1) Leiden Journal of International Law 157 (2012).
20. Lillich R.B. Intervention to Protect Human Rights, 15(2) McGill Law Journal 205 (1969).
21. Linnan D.K. Self-Defense, Necessity and U.N. Collective Security: United States and Other Views, 1 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 57 (1991).
22. Massingham E. Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes: Does the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Advance the Legality of the Use of Force for Humanitarian Ends?, 91(876) International Review of the Red Cross 803 (2009).
23. Mohamed S. Omission, Acts, and the Security Council’s (in) Actions in Syria, 31 Boston University International Law Journal 413 (2013).
24. O’Donnell C. The Development of the Responsibility to Protect: An Examination of the Debate over the Legality of Humanitarian Intervention, 24 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 558 (2014).
25. Paust J.J. International Law, Dignity, Democracy and Arab Spring, 46(1) Cornell Journal of International Law 1 (2013).
26. Paust J.J. Use of Armed Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Beyond, 35(3) Cornell Journal of International Law 533 (2012).
27. Pax T. Nicaragua v. United States in the International Court of Justice: Compulsory Jurisdiction or Just Compulsion?, 8(2) Boston College of International and Comparative Law Review 471 (1985).
28. Petro N.N. Legal Case for Russian Intervention in Georgia, 32(5) Fordham International Law Journal 1524 (2008).
29. Rostow E.V. The Legality of the International Use of Force by and from States, 10 Yale Journal of International Law 286 (1985).
30. Schank A. Sectarianism and Transitional Justice in Syria: Resisting International Trials, 45 Georgetown Journal of International Law 557 (2014).
31. Shanahan Cutts N.M. Enemies Through the Gates: Russian Violations of International Law in
32. the Georgia/Abkhazia Conflict, 40(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 281 (2007–2008).
33. Shleifer A. & Treisman D. A Normal Country: Russia after Communism, 19(1) Journal of Economic Perspective 151 (2005).
34. Stromseth J. Pursuing Accountability for Atrocities after Conflict: What Impact on Building the Rule of Law?, 38 Georgetown Journal of International Law 251 (2007).
35. Sverdlov D. Rape in War: Prosecuting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Boko Haram for Sexual Violence Against Women, 50 Cornell Journal of International Law 333 (2017).
36. Terry P. Germany Joins the Campaign Against ISIS in Syria: A Case of Collective Self-Defence or Rather the Unlawful Use of Force?, 4(1) Russian Law Journal 26 (2016).
37. Thakur R. Law, Legitimacy and United Nations, 11(1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 1 (2010).
38. Thakur R. R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers, 36(2) Washington Quarterly 61 (2013).
39. Thielbörger P. The Status and Future of International Law after the Libya Intervention, 4(1) Gottingen Journal of International Law 11 (2012).
40. Ulfstein G. & Christiansen H.F. The Legality of the NATO Bombing in Libya, 62(1) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 159 (2013).
41. Waxman M.C. Syria, Threats of Force, and Constitutional War Powers, 123(6) Yale Law Journal 297 (2013).
42. Wenger A. & Mason S.J.A. The Civilisation of Armed Conflict: Trends and Implications, 90(872) International Review of the Red Cross 835 (2008).
43. Williams P.R. & Popken C. Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya: A Moment of Legal & Moral Clarity, 44(1) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 225 (2011).
For citation: Lutta J. How russian intervention in syria redefined the right to protect in armed conflict. Russian Law Journal. 2018;6(2):4-38. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-2-4-38
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.