LABOUR and the Tories clashed over the legality of Saturday’s missile strikes in Syria.
A day after the attack, the Government released a summary of the legal advice from the attorney general, Jeremy Wright, saying the use of force could be justified in law as it was necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe.
The attorney general told the Prime Minister that Bashar al-Assad’s regime was guilty of a “serious crime of international concern, as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity”.
This he argued, allowed the UK “to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering”. But Labour yesterday revealed its own legal advice which claimed the attacks may be legally questionable
Dapo Akande, professor of public international law and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, said the Government’s position was “significantly flawed” as neither the United Nations charter nor international law permitted military action on the basis of humanitarian intervention. Akande then went on to say that even if such a clause existed in international law, Saturday’s strikes against Syria would still not meet the threshold. “It is quite clear that the position advocated by the Government is not an accurate reflection of international law as it currently stands,” he said.
“International law does not permit individual states to use force on the territory of other states in order to pursue humanitarian ends determined by those states.”
The professor also warned about the precedent of using this humanitarian rationale for the attack: “If accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends. It is precisely because of the risk of abuse that this may give rise to, and the consequent humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action.”
He warned that it could open up the possibility of a small group of states, or individual states, “taking action based on their own subjective interpretations as to when it is right or proper to use force”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel