Apr 12, 2018
Just ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's tweet early Thursday warning that a military attack on Syria will take place at some point in the future--either "soon or not so soon"--a group of international law experts declared in a statement that any such attack would amount to an illegal act of aggression, which has been defined as "the supreme international crime."
\u201cNever said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our \u201cThank you America?\u201d\u201d— Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump) 1523528125
"The unlawful killing of any human being without legal justification, under every legal system, is murder," the experts said. "And an act of violence committed by one government against another government, without lawful justification, amounts to the crime of aggression: the supreme international crime which carries with it the evil of every other international crime, as noted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946."
"We urge the United States to abide by its commitment to the rule of international law and to seek to resolve its disputes through peaceful means."
"Our point is a simple one: the only way to resolve the Syrian crisis is through commitment to well-settled principles of international legal norms," the experts continued. "We urge the United States to abide by its commitment to the rule of international law and to seek to resolve its disputes through peaceful means."
In addition to violating international law, American members of Congress have argued in recent days that any unilateral attack on Syria would also violate the U.S. Constitution.
"President Trump has no legal authority for broadening the war in Syria," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "It is Congress, not the president, who determines whether our country goes to war, and Congress must not abdicate that responsibility."
Nonetheless, Trump--with the corporate media dutifully beating the war drums in the background--has continued to escalate tensions and threaten missile strikes against Syria on Twitter, stoking fears of a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.
As Common Dreamsreported, Trump on Wednesday directly warned Russia to "get ready" because missiles "will be coming" at Syria.
Read the international law experts' full statement against Trump's push for military action below:
We are practitioners and professors of international law. Under international law, military strikes by the United States of America and its allies against the Syrian Arab Republic, unless conducted in self-defense or with United Nations Security Council approval, are illegal and constitute acts of aggression.
The unlawful killing of any human being without legal justification, under every legal system, is murder. And an act of violence committed by one government against another government, without lawful justification, amounts to the crime of aggression: the supreme international crime which carries with it the evil of every other international crime, as noted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946.
The use of military force by a state can be used in self-defense after an armed attack by another state, or, with the approval of the United Nations Security Council. At present, neither instance would apply to a U.S. strike against Syria.
We understand the urge to act to protect innocent civilians. We strongly condemn any and all violence against civilians, whoever the perpetrators. But responding to unlawful violence with more unlawful violence, bypassing existing legal mechanisms, is a road to a lawless world. It is a road that leads to Hell.
Accordingly, we urge the United States and its allies to refrain from illegal conduct against Syria. We must point out that for the last several years, as is now common knowledge, the United States has armed rebels/insurgents to overthrow the current government of Syria. This is illegal under international law. In 1986, in The Nicaragua Case, the International Court of Justice reprimanded the United States for arming and supporting contra militias and combatants, and for mining Nicaragua's harbors, as acts which violated the U.N. Charter and international law. Perhaps the Syrian crisis would look differently today if the United States and its allies had consistently respected law for the last several years. They have not.
We take pains to note what should be obvious: our demand that the United States and its allies immediately comport themselves with their international legal obligations is not a justification, excuse, or some type of free pass on the investigation and accountability for international legal violations committed by other actors who may be involved in this sad affair. But our point is a simple one: the only way to resolve the Syrian crisis is through commitment to well-settled principles of international legal norms. We urge the United States to abide by its commitment to the rule of international law and to seek to resolve its disputes through peaceful means. These means include recourse to the use of established and legitimate institutions designed to maintain international peace and security, such as the U.N. Security Council or the International Court of Justice. Unilateral action is a sign of weakness; recourse to the law is a sign of strength. The United States must walk back from becoming the very monster it now seeks to destroy.
Just Atonement Inc.
Dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler
Research Professor of Law
University of Makeni
UN Representative of International-Lawyers.org
Dr. Ryan Alford
Bora Laskin Faculty of Law, Lakehead University
Civil Rights Attorney and Co-Founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
66th Attorney-General of the United States
of Democratic Lawyers
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.