THE UK GOVERNMENT‘S LEGAL OPINION ON FORCIBLE MEASURES IN RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Argumentation ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Short Article ◽  
Military Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Legal Opinion

AbstractOn 29 August 2013, the UK government published a memorandum setting out its ‘position regarding the legality of military action in Syria following the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013’. While other States had contemplated some form of military action, most notably the US, none had been as clear and candid as to the legal basis upon which this would be launched. It might seem in this respect perhaps a little surprising that the UK decided in its relatively brief opinion that ‘the legal basis for military action would be humanitarian intervention’. As this article will attempt to highlight, this basic justification is far from uncontroversial. This short article will seek to be clear as to what the UK's legal position exactly was, whether and how this position can be reconciled with the lex lata governing the use of force for humanitarian purposes and its immediate impact upon it, and finally offer some reflections upon the contribution the opinion and its central legal argument has made to future legal argumentation in this area.

Unilateral Military Action in the Syrian Arab Republic: A Right to Humanitarian Intervention or a Crime of Aggression?

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-343
Author(s):  
Manisuli Ssenyonjo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Syrian Arab Republic ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk

On 29 August 2013 the UK government officially endorsed humanitarian intervention as a legal basis for using force against Syria. The UK government stated that if its action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take ‘exceptional measures’ in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. The UK government claimed that such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met: (i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief; (ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and (iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose). It concluded that all three conditions would clearly be met in the case of Syria. This article argues that UK’s legal position is flawed and not supported by the permitted exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force under Charter of the United Nations.

Part 3 The Post 9/11-Era (2001–), 49 The Iraq War—2003

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weller Marc
Keyword(s):  
Iraq War ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Cumulative Effect ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Community ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Us ◽  
Further Development

This contribution discusses the Iraq War of 2003. It begins by setting out the facts and context of the US and British invasion. It then considers the legal justifications put forward by the intervening states and assesses the reaction of the international community to these events. It then tests the legality of the intervention against the international legal framework governing the use of force as it stood at the time of the events. In particular it considers whether UNSC Resolution 1441 provided a legal basis for the use of force against Iraq. The final section examines if, and to what extent, the case had an impact on the further development of the jus ad bellum. The Iraq War of 2003 did indeed have an effect on the erosion of the prohibition of the use of force, however it was a cumulative effect, rather than an immediate and decisive one.

scholarly journals Terrorism, The use of Force and International Law After 11 September

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Military Action ◽  
The Us

The United States response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 was encouraging for those who worry about a tendency towards unilateralism on the part of the single super-power. The US deliberately engaged a number of international organisations and built an extensive coalition of supporting States before engaging in military action.

scholarly journals Negative surprise in UN Security Council authorization: Do the UK and French vetoes influence the general public’s support of US military action?

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-409
Author(s):  
Naoko Matsumura ◽  
Atsushi Tago
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Public ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Military Action ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Military

Authorization of the use of force by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is believed to increase levels of public support for military action. While scholars have performed sterling research both in theory and empirics on the power of UNSC authorization, there is still much that we do not understand. In particular, we believe that it is necessary to conduct a further study on ‘failed’ authorization cases. As Terrence Chapman points out in his theoretical framework, the general public can derive valuable information based on which of the permanent members of the Council casts a veto; this in turn affects public attitudes towards the use of force. An expected veto cast by the perpetual nay-sayer would not serve as information for the general public. However, if the veto is cast by an allied state of a proposer of the authorizing resolution, the negative vote functions as an information short-cut signaling that the use of force presents a variety of problems, thus reducing public support for the military action. Using online survey experiments, we find supportive evidence for this argument. Our data also suggest that surprising negative information changes the perceptions of legitimacy, legality, public goods, and US interest in a proposed military action, but is unrelated to the perception of costs, casualties or duration.

I. Legal Assessment of the Use of Force Against Iraq

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1059-1063
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
The Military

As the legal basis for the military action against Iraq references are made to Security Council resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991), 1441 (2002).In our view the above-mentioned resolutions considered in their entirety and in combination with other resolutions on Iraq, official statements of States on their interpretation and provisions of the UN Charter which were the basis for their adoption, show that the Security Council did not authorise Member States in this case to use force against Iraq.

Withdraw, defend or destroy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rowland Atkinson ◽  
Sarah Blandy
Keyword(s):  
Popular Culture ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The State ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Uk

Here we discuss the balance of responsibility between the state and the individual homeowner to protect the home, against the background of a lack of confidence in governments' ability to prevent crime and the rising sense of victimhood in popular culture and criminal justice systems. The focus of this chapter is on the legal position of the homeowner who uses lethal force in defence of their home. Illustrated by high-profile cases, developments in the law on defence and revenge are analysed and comparisons are made between the US, the UK and Australia.

Defence industries in international relations

1990 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Taylor
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The Political ◽  
Big Business ◽  
The Us ◽  
Defence Sector ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Technological Significance

While the threat and use of force remain elements or even possibilities in world affairs, the political importance of the defence industries will be substantial. Defence industries must be viewed as significant because of the contribution that they make to allowing states to deter attack and to use force. But they also have an economic and technological significance. In the UK, France and the US, defence equipment represents about 10 per cent of total manufacturing output. Equipment orders from home and abroad provide employment for around 500,000 people in the UK, at least 300,000 in France, and over two million in the US. The US Department of Defence, the Pentagon, employs 134,000 people just to procure equipment worth about $130 billion involving 15 million contracts a year. Defence equipment is big business and is particularly important today in the aerospace, electronics and shipbuilding sectors. Between a quarter and a third of professional technologists and scientists in Britain, France and the US work in the defence sector.

Part 3 The Post 9/11-Era (2001–), 57 US Extra-Territorial Actions Against Individuals: Bin Laden, Al Awlaki, and Abu Khattalah—2011 and 2014

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kretzmer David
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Community ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
The Us ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Wide Gap ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Osama Bin Laden

This chapter discusses the targeted killing by the US of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and of Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen, and the capture of Ahmed Abu Kattalah in Libya. It presents the facts and context of the actions, the legal position of the US and other protagonists and reactions in the international community. It proceeds to discuss the arguments for and against the legality of these extra-territorial actions by the US under law regarding use of force (but not under ius in bello). In the final section it is argued that rather than having precedential value the actions and reactions in these cases serve to emphasize the wide gap that exists in the different perceptions of states and scholars regarding the law on the extra-territorial use of force against terrorist groups or other groups of non-state actors.

scholarly journals Humanitarian Intervention: Fairy Tale about One Swallow Which Made Summer?

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-154
Author(s):  
Ondřej Svaček
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Fairy Tale ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Peremptory Norm ◽  
The Uk

Summary In its final report on aggression and the use of force, the International Law Association opined that the only way in which unilateral humanitarian intervention could possibly be seen as a legal exception to the prohibition of the use of force is if State practice and opinio juris were to be found establishing its status as an additional exception in customary international law. After the airstrikes conducted by the US, the UK, and France against Syria in April 2018, which took place in reaction to unprecedented usage of chemical weapons against civilian population by regime of Bashar Asad, some States and part of scholars argued that this permissive rule (exception) has already crystalized and humanitarian intervention became part of international law. The aim of this article is to assess whether these opinions are relevant or whether they are simply premature. The text is divided into three parts. Firstly, legality of humanitarian intervention is considered in the framework of the UN Charter and customary international law on the use of force based on evaluation of scholarly debates and the most prominent examples of State practice before 2018. Then, the article describes methodology that is employed in relation to the creation (modification) of customary international law in general and peremptory norm concerning the prohibition on the use of force in particular. This part analyzes how possible normative changes of jus ad bellum should be assessed. The third part evaluates justifications and reactions of States with respect to the use of force against Syria in April 2018 that were presented by the international community of States. The article concludes that the concept of humanitarian intervention remains still illegal even after the airstrikes against Syria from 2018, what conforms to the prevailing opinion presented in contemporary scholarly literature. Even though the positive echoes identified in State practice (and doctrine) are yet premature, they indicate that process of gradual normative change has already been triggered. At the same time, the expectations concerning crystallization of a new possible exception to the general prohibition on the use of force should not be too exaggerated.

ACTUALITY OF THE SIMPLE PARTNERSHIP AS A FORM OF CARRYING OUT JOINT ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-40
Author(s):  
Shakhnoza Erkabaeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activity ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Limited Partnerships

This article carefully analyzes the actual problems related to attracting investment and optimal ways of carrying out entrepreneurial activity. Moreover, the article presents the ground of ineffectiveness of the legal basis of simple partnership as well as the comparative-legal analysis of limited partnerships according to thelegislation of the United Kingdom and the USA. Furthermore, this article contains proposals for reforming the legal status of a simple partnership based on the experience of the UK and the US in regulating limited partnerships

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document