World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

We are continuing our discussion of whether an American attack on Syria conforms to the demands of the Just War Doctrine.  The second principle of the Doctrine is as follows:

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

There are several dimensions to this principle.  The US government is unquestionably a legitimate authority over its own national security.  It has a government that adheres to a regular process of elections, observes constitutional limits to the authority of the government, and enjoys the broad support of the population on the character of its government (representative democracy).  It is for this reason that President Obama and Secretary Kerry continue to emphasize the national security dimension of the alleged chemical attack.  If the government truly believes, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, that the chemical weapons will be used against Americans on American soil, then an American attack on Syria would be justified.

The difficulty in this argument, however, is that there is no one who believes, nor is there any evidence to suggest, that Syria intends to attack the US with chemical weapons.  Therefore, the US government alone is not a legitimate authority to decide whether to attack Syria because of a chemical attack on Syrian people.  The chemical attack is clearly a war crime, and it therefore means that the provisions of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) can be implemented.  The legitimate authority for R2P, however, is the UN Security Council:

“In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and
decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter,
including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant
regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and
national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”

We know, however, that the Russians (and probably the Chinese) would veto any effort by the Security Council to take decisive action against the Syrian government.  So the legitimate authority for humanitarian purposes would not take any action.

There is a third possible source of legitimate authority in this controversy, and it is derived from the very long prohibition against the use of chemical weapons.   The list of international treaties is long, beginning with the Strasbourg Agreement (1675), the First Hague Convention, 1899, the Second Hague Convention (1907), the Washington Treaty (1922), and the Geneva Convention (1925).  Finally, the Chemical Weapons Convention (1997) has been signed by 189 countries, although it was not signed by Syria which refused to sign because of Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons.

The Obama Administration has argued that there is an international norm against the use of chemical weapons that needs to be enforced.  Implicit in this position is that the US as a dominant world power has the authority to enforce clear international norms.   In his meeting with Baltic leaders on 30 August in Washington, DC, President Obama said:

“So I have said before and I meant what I said, that the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons.  Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. “

So the authority being claimed is actually one of a hegemonic power enforcing the international rules of conduct.  Needless to say, this definition of authority is not codified in any way, nor could it be because it essentially gives great latitude to great powers.  But hegemonic power is itself a “norm” of international behavior.  The world often looks to the great powers to take action in the face of great tragedy, such as occurred in Rwanda in 1994.

In many respects, this definition of authority is an appeal to the future: “We must take action now in order to prevent a greater problem in the future.”  Indeed, there is little question in my mind that the Obama Administration has made such a big issue of international norms because it is also looking to a future problem with Iran and the norm of non-proliferation.  If the US does not take action against Syria, is it implicitly sending a message to Iran that it would not be punished for violating the norm of non-proliferation?

Overall, the Just War concern with legitimate authority is a very muddy issue with respect to an American attack on Syria.  It is very difficult to argue that the US has sufficient legitimate authority on its own to launch an attack.