An alliance led by the US, Britain, and France has been bombarding targets in Syria since 2015. Nevertheless, different events must be distinguished. On the first hand, some bombings took place in order to fight against Daesh. Iraq asked for the help of other countries in order to wipe out terrorism. However, these terrorists are also located beyond the Iraqi borders, in Syria. So, the conflict has expanded on the Syrian territory. But France is not officially at war with Syria, thus we can question the legality of these bombings. International law specifies that an intervention in a country must be accepted by the latter. However, Syria didn't allow this military action. In order to justify it, France declared that Syria committed crimes against humanity and invoked Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. This article specifies that countries have the right to act in self-defence in response to a threat. Nevertheless, such an action has to concern an imminent threat and be discussed in the United Nations. So, France bypassed the UN because of the Russian veto which would have been very likely, and took advantage of the legal grey zone in order to intervene in Syria. To sum up, it is quite unclear if the French intervention was legal or not. In any case, a broad reading of Article 51 has become usual.
[...] The Syrian Conflict: Effectiveness and Ethics of the Bombing by the United States, Britain, and France An alliance led by the US, Britain, and France has been bombarding targets in Syria since 2015. Nevertheless, different events must be distinguished. On the first hand, some bombings took place in order to fight against Daesh. Iraq asked for the help of other countries in order to wipe out terrorism. However, these terrorists are also located beyond the Iraqi borders, in Syria. So, the conflict has expanded on the Syrian territory. [...]
[...] As a result it seems Syria infringed the text it had signed. Finally, it is well known that Russia supports the Syrian government and makes any international action through the UN impossible. As a member of the UN Security Council, Russia has indeed blocked 12 UN resolutions since 2012. All in all, a quick and powerful response by the US, the UK and France seems to be an appropriate and noble action, in order to prevent an escalation of the violence. [...]
[...] Western governments accused the Syrian government of committing chemical attacks against its own people. The US claimed to have proof that these attacks did take place. There would have been approximately 100 chemical attacks since the beginning of the civil war, causing the death of more than 3000 civilians. As a result, some western nations such as France, the UK and the US decided to intervene by claiming their action was aimed at protecting the human rights of the Syrian population. [...]
[...] The siege of several cities and the mass starvation has caused a great majority of the population to flee. My point is that, with all these horrors happening well before chemical attacks, western powers should have intervened sooner and differently. Adding new bombings to an already long list will only normalize the horrific war's brutality and traumatize men, women and children. To conclude, it is clear that, from a certain point of view, the action of the US, Britain and France doesn't solve the problem and is only a smokescreen that could have vicious consequences. [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee