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: 85

Comment

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

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Climate Change and the Power to Act: An Ethical Approach for Practical Progress

Robyn Eckersley, Ronny Jumeau, Darrel Moellendorf, and Suma Peesapati each discuss how we can advance climate justice globally and locally in the years ahead. These clips summarize the participants' comments made as part of a roundtable hosted by the Carnegie Council's journal, Ethics & International Affairs, at the International Studies Association's Annual Convention, which took place in April 2018.

Global Ethics Forum Preview: The Return of Marco Polo's World, with Robert D. Kaplan

On the Global Ethics Forum series finale, best-selling author Robert Kaplan discusses China's global ambitions in an increasingly connected world. In this excerpt Kaplan discusses some of the underreported aspects of China's Belt and Road Initiative. Thanks for watching!

The Zero Tolerance Migration Policy: Two Moral Objections

"The ends do not always justify the means, especially when children are involved." It's important to lay out all the ways Trump's policy of separating migrant children from their parents is morally wrong. Here are two of them.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

E&IA Journal

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2018   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service