Two years have passed, and Syria is still embroiled in the catastrophic civil war that started in 2011. It is no surprise to hear Lakhdar Brahimi’s words against this background: that this year could witness the loss of 100,000 more lives in Syria.

Following closely at the heels of a massacre near a University, this statement just reiterates how helpless the world is about the situation. The massacre itself took place after air strikes on refugee camps and people queuing up for food. There was also an incident of shelling of a group of school children near Damascus – somewhere around the time when similar events took place in Connecticut and China.

There is no doubt that in every conflict – be it internal or international, the ones that suffer most are civilians. The reasons are simple: there isn’t as much respect for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as there is for political interests; this in turn stems from the second reason – where the enforcement of IHL is difficult in a state of war.

In Syria’s case, Russia and China have vetoed Security Council resolutions that sought to examine intervention as a possible course of action, sought to impose sanctions and even beat efforts that sought to bring the situation in Syria to International Criminal Court. Instead of taking steps to condemn the crime, Russia and China have even sold weapons to the Syrian government. Their actions have been criticised, of course. For their part, the Russians argue that they do not intend to tear up contracts made before the outbreak of violence in Syria.

What is happening in Syria is nothing short of a catastrophe. War crimes thrive, unimpeded. There are globally poised enablers that are continuously letting this happen. IHL for the most part is rendered toothless simply because it cannot be enforced on ground. The International Criminal Court cannot pursue suspects without state co-operation or Security Council resolutions. Any obstruction from the governments themselves and other global powers can throw this into serious disarray.

Views: 89

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Global Ethics Weekly: A Blue Wave for Foreign Policy? with Nikolas Gvosdev

Carnegie Council Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev and host Alex Woodson discuss what U.S. foreign policy could look like if Democrats take Congress in November and/or the White House in 2020. What do Bernie Sanders' views on international affairs have in common with "America First"? Is there space for a more centrist policy? And after the 2016 election, is the U.S. still able to effectively promote democracy abroad?

Korea & the "Republic of Samsung" with Geoffrey Cain

Korea expert Geoffrey Cain talks about his forthcoming book, "The Republic of Samsung," which reveals how the Samsung dynasty (father and son) are beyond the law and are treated as cult figures by their employees--rather like the leaders of North Korea. He also discusses the prospects for peace on the Korean peninsula--is Trump helping or hurting?--and the strange and sensational story behind the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye.

Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, with Francis Fukuyama

The rise of global populism is the greatest threat to global democracy, and it's mainly driven not by economics, but by people's demand for public recognition of their identities, says political scientist Francis Fukuyama. "We want other people to affirm our worth, and that has to be a political act." How is this playing out in the U.S., Europe, and Asia? What practical steps can we take to counteract it?

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

E&IA Journal

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2018   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service