On The Tension Between Humanitarian Law And International Law:The Case Of Syria War

The joint Russian-US deal to eliminate Syria’s chemical stockpile in order to avoid a US military strike on Syria and its concomitant drift and shift of focus coupled with the statement made by Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister and the Peoples Will Party leader Qadri Jamil on September 20th denying the reports that Bashir al –Assad led government would propose a cease-fire at planned peace talks in Geneva unveil the underlying complications to end the war in Syria.

 However, the US secretary of state John Kerry has also called on the United Nations Security Council to act concertedly and quickly to ensure the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in a press briefing in Washington on 20th September. In any case, it has been acknowledged by Damascus that chemical weapons were used but the yet to be answered question is who used chemical weapons? The Bashir a-Assad led government or the rebel.

Be that as it may, Bashir al-Assad   denies the use of chemical weapons by his forces and accuses the opposition; Moscow is also pointing accusing fingers at the opposition. At the moment, tension of international moral outrage has subsided, impasse looks as the prevailing scenario in Syria as earlier identified by Seth Kaplan, rebels tend to disunite the more, over hundred thousand of people mostly civilians have been killed and killings continue unabated; over two million people have fled for refuge and hundreds of thousands are still fleeing Syria; refugee camps are increasingly becoming overstretched .The question is, what does this situations portend for the success and the future of International Humanitarian Law with respect to Article2 Paras. 1 and 7 of the United Nations Charter? Could International Law and International Humanitarian Law be applied side by side in Syria and even beyond Syria without one undermining the other to the peril of Humanity taking cognizance of the former as traditionally clinging on to Sovereignty and finding fortress in the conspicuous inherent draw backs of International Law and the latter embracing the Responsibility to Protect as find expression in International Humanitarian Law?

Tags: Ethics, Humanitarian, International, Law

Views: 162

Reply to This

Carnegie Council

Gene Editing Governance & Dr. He Jiankui, with Jeffrey Kahn

Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute for Bioethics, discusses the many governance issues connected to gene editing. Plus, he gives a first-hand account of an historic conference in Hong Kong last year in which Dr. He Jiankui shared his research on the birth of the world's first germline genetically engineered babies. What's the future of the governance of this emerging technology?

Trump is the Symptom, Not the Problem

Astute observers of U.S. foreign policy have been making the case, as we move into the 2020 elections, not to see the interruptions in the flow of U.S. foreign policy solely as a result of the personality and foibles of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, writes Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev. Ian Bremmer and Colin Dueck expand on this thought.

Gene Editing: Overview, Ethics, & the Near Future, with Robert Klitzman

In the first in a series of podcasts on gene editing, Columbia's Dr. Robert Klitzman provides an overview of the technology, ethical and governance issues, and where it could all go in the near future. Plus he explains why the birth of genetically engineered twins in China last year was a "seismic" event. How could gene editing lead to more inequality? What could be some of unintended consequences?





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.