Latest in Biological and Chemical Weapons
Senators Manchin and Heitcamp are working on an alternative Syria Resolution that tentatively provides:
John Dehn, a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and a Senior Fellow in West Point's Center for the Rule of Law, writes in with this comment about Syria and humanitarian intervention:
Earlier today I said that President Obama’s dismissal of a Security Council authorization as a prerequisite for intervention in Syria “marks the death knell for the long-held USG view that humanitarian intervention without Security Council approval violates the U.N.
As Congress moves to debate authorization for the use of force in Syria, and especially since there is some question about whether DOD has adequate funding for a strike in Syria, Congress may want to ponder the votes it took in the not-unrelated context of Kosovo fourteen years ago. (The original purposes of the Kosovo strikes were similar to the ones stated for Syria: “to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO
A few items that are in my opinion worth a read:
I have been hard on the President – on this blog last week, and today in the NYT – for what just about everyone (except Philip Bobbitt) thought was going to be his strike in Syria without congressional authorization. I was thus surprised, but very happily surprised, when the President announced this afternoon that he would seek congressional authorization f
President Obama has just declared his decision to launch military strikes against Syria, after seeking approval for Congress, in order to hold the Syrian government accountable for its recent chemical weapon atrocities. The Obama administration and many advocates of military strikes against Syria – including some members of Congress, many security experts, the French President – have stated that the long-term object of this policy is to deter future use of chemical weapons generally, not just by the Syr
Philip Bobbitt has an interesting piece from yesterday that compares the different British and American outlooks on confrontation with Syria, and recommends a course of action in Washington. He notes that the Brits conceptualized Syria primarily in humanitarian intervention terms, while the Americans are more focused on credibility and red lines, and he sketches the implications of these different outlooks. Bobbitt discusses the importan
Jack's and Ashley’s analyses have covered the waterfront, so far as concerns the Kosovo precedent’s meaning (legal, moral and so forth) for a possible Syria intervention. Their remarks raised in my mind two further thoughts about the President’s ability to intervene in Syria without prior congressional approval.
Over the weekend, the United Kingdom joined the United States in warning publicly about Syria’s intentions regarding its chemical weapons. Foreign Secretary William Hague told reporters that the U.K.