Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.

Secure 100% Original On Time Delivery

During the Syrian war, the US, France, and the United Kingdom, have launched missile strikes into Syria:
US, France and Britain launch missile strikes on Syrian weapons facilities (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
US, France and Britain launch missile strikes on Syrian weapons facilities
The stated reasons for the attack:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-syria-airstrikes-full-transcript.html
Was the joint missile strike on Syria legal?
Was the joint missile strike on Syria legal? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Was the joint missile strike on Syria legal?
The short answer is that if there is clear evidence of a violation of international humanitarian law. (IHL) by the Syrian government against its own people, the United States and other countries should invoke the proper, legal process for determining that such an action has taken place, and then take the appropriate legal action to refer the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.
However, there are diplomatic, legal, ethical, and practical hurdles to this route, which is why the course through the proper international law channels takes time. Part of the reason that the US, France, and the United Kingdom took immediate action was their desire to prevent future chemical weapons attacks and save lives.
As you can see, this is a complex situation, with many issues to be weighed and balanced. However, there are clear guidelines from IHL, and simply saying there are “gray areas” is not accurate. In fact, we are studying IHL so that we can sort out good arguments about applying IHL from the bad arguments about applying IHL.
After reading the case study, answer the following questions:
1) What is your judgment about the decision to authorize the strike into Syria? Was it legal? Was it moral? State why you think so.
2) The immediate results of the decision to authorize the strike in Syria were mixed. It clearly degraded the government’s capacity to wage chemical warfare, however, the government’s capacity to wage conventional warfare (which has killed many more people) has not been impacted. From a “Moral Consequentialist” point of view, do you think it was worth the trade off, i.e. it was the right thing to do to fire the missiles into Syria? Do you think the consequences determine whether or not this decision is right or wrong?
3) Do you think the decision to degrade the chemical warfare capacity of Syria saved innocent lives? Why or why not? What are your sources of authority? Do you have high or low confidence in this knowledge?
4) Is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) involved in this case? Why or why not? State why you think so, or why not. What are your sources of authority?
What is IHL:
This week we introduce the concept of the law of war, now known as International Humanitarian Law
(IHL), which is the body of treaty and customary international law that regulates the behavior of states
in armed conflict.
We begin this section with a short (8:00) video about the history of IHL, and the founding of the Red
Cross:

“This film, combining colourful animation with recent images, brings to life the history of the
Red Cross Red Crescent Movement from Henry Dunant and the Battle of Solferino through to
today. The film explains the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, the universal humanitarian
principles underlying the Movement’s efforts and the general activities carried out by the
different components, the ICRC, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies and the National Societies, as they work together to help those in need.
More information: http://www.ifrc.org and http://www.icrc.org”
Here are more details about International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of treaty and customary international law that regulates
the behavior of states in armed conflict. IHL has two primary purposes. First, it protects those who do
not participate or are no longer participating in armed conflict, including sick and wounded soldiers,
prisoners of war, and civilians. Second, it regulates the means and methods that states may legally use
to carry out armed conflict. The primary sources for mode rn IHL are the four Geneva Conventions of
1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977.
Although much of IHL is concerned specifically with international armed conflict, each of the Geneva
Conventions contains an identical article, known as Common Article Th ree, that concerns non-
international conflicts. The Additional Protocol II of 1977 also regulates behavior in non -international
conflicts. A number of other international agreements have sought to regulate the types of weapons
that may be used in war. These conventions include the Biological Weapons Convention (1972), the
Conventional Weapons Convention (1980), the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993), and the
Landmines Convention (1997). These treaties have sought to ban certain types of conventional and
unconventional weapons that cause excessive civilian casualties or are otherwise deemed to be
inhumane.
The corpus of IHL consists of a wide range of laws intended to limit the effects of warfare. The major
provisions of modern IHL include a responsibility to provide medical assistance to sick and wounded
soldiers (even those of the enemy), to treat prisoners of war with dignity and respect, and to protect
civilian populations. Prisoners of war cannot be put on trial or punished simply for fighting in a war, and
they have a right to have contact wi th family and friends even while they are being detained. IHL also
requires states to minimize the effects of armed conflict on civilian populations and to meet the needs
of the population of any territory that they may occupy. Finally, IHL obligates state s to allow
international humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),
to monitor their compliance with the provisions of IHL during armed conflict.
Weapons Conventions
Weapons conventions are relatively recent in human history, although the use of biological and
chemical weapons goes back to the Middle Ages. The earliest international effort to ban chemical
weapons was the 1899 Hague Peace Conference, which failed to prevent the use of poison gas in World
War I (1914–1918). The 1925 Geneva Protocol was the most significant attempt to control the
production and deployment of biological as well as chemical agents between the two world wars.
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 was the first disarmament treaty banning production
of an entire category of weapons. Intended to supplement the Geneva Protocols, the BWC had been
ratified by 150 nations by 2005. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993 had been ratified by
167 countries as of 2004. The CWC set up a timetable for the destruction of chemical weapons, from 1
percent in April 2000 to 45 percent by April 2004 and 100 percent by April 2007. By April 2004, however,
only about 14 percent of stockpiled chemical weapons had been destroyed.
Since 2001 there has been increased concern regarding the possible use of biological and chemical
weapons by terrorist groups. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lists no fewer than 47 viruses and
bacteria that could be used for bioterrorism, and thirteen categories of chemicals (nerve gases, vomiting
agents, biotoxins, and others) that could be used against civilians.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/legal -and-political-magazines/international-humanitarian-
law

Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.

Secure 100% Original On Time No AI Content