Jus ad Bellum/UN Charter/Sovereignty

Embedded in the theory justifying the UK strike in Syria is the idea that the Syrian government was unwilling or unable to suppress that threat.  It seems France also may soon rely on the same legal theory as the United Kingdom.

Prime Minister David Cameron is looking to do more in Syria against ISIS.  Today his Minister of Defence, Michael Fallon, made the case before Parliament that the UK should participate in coalition airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria.  The UK government’s renewed interest in undertaking airstrikes in Syria is driven largely by the attack last week on tourists in Tunisia, in which 29 or 30 of the 38 killed were Brits.  (Officials are investigating links between the attacker and ISIS.)  Cameron’s government also seems motivated by the idea that limiting uses of force to Iraqi soil makes little strategic sense when ISIS itself treats the Iraqi/Syria border as irrelevant. But what does this still-developing situation say about the UK's justification, under international law, regarding the use of force? 

This past week, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence put on its annual Cyber Conflict conference in Tallinn, Estonia. The conference boasted a number of experienced cyber-hands, including Adm. Mike Rodgers, DefCon founder Jeff Moss, and law of armed conflict expert Mike Schmitt. One of the most interesting sessions, which included a presentation by Mike, focused on aspects of the Tallinn Manual versions 1.0 and 2.0. Version 1.0, produced by an independent group of experts, came out in 2013.

Judicial imperialism is defeating the British armed forces. At least this is what the authors of a report recently published by the Policy Exchange---an influential British think tank---claim.