When Law is Wrong and Bombing is Right

I frequently write about the shortcomings of the human rights movement. But this week we’re seeing a situation where it’s not how activists interpret things, but rather international law itself that’s letting us down.

Since the sudden fall of Assad’s regime, Israel has been bombing Syrian military bases like there’s a going out of business sale. Israel’s air force carried out about 350 strikes in just 48 hours, destroying around eighty percent of Syria’s military. And Israel is not alone- the United States claims to have also attacked around 75 targets, and Turkey is said to be involved as well. The rationale is that the intentions of Syria’s new rulers are unclear, and this will prevent them from having access to weapons should they prove hostile.

Predictably, these strikes have been condemned as a violation of international law. The spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General called this a violation of Syria’s territorial integrity, and said the change of regime should not be used by other countries as an opportunity to encroach on Syrian territory. Various other countries also condemned these strikes as exploiting Syria’s instability and violating international norms.

They’re right about one thing. There’s no question these attacks are illegal.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes clear that ‘self-defense if an armed attack occurs’ is the only justification for a country to use force absent authorization by the Security Council. While there is much debate about when a preemptive strike can be considered self-defense, it is generally agreed that in order to qualify a preemptive strike must be aimed at preventing an imminent attack. The Syrian military equipment being bombed was sitting idle or in storage, currently not being used to threaten Israel or the U.S.

But here’s the other thing- while these attacks are illegal, they are also right.

The premise of these condemnations is that international law grants countries the right to arm themselves and form a military. One country cannot legally stop another from acquiring arms. This is considered a part of sovereignty. The Assad regime, by virtue of being Syria’s ruler, had the right to a military. Now the rebels, because they have chased out Assad and now form Syria’s government, are thereby entitled to a military too.

But shouldn’t there be some standards regarding who can possess weapons with vast destructive power?

In the United States, where gun ownership is a right, courts have still found that laws restricting felons from possessing firearms are reasonable and therefore pass constitutional muster. This is because if someone has committed a felony in the past, there is increased risk they will use a gun for illegal purposes in the future. Shouldn’t we apply at least that same logic here?

The rebel organization responsible for overthrowing Assad is Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). They are designated as a terror group in many Western countries due to their affiliation with Al-Qaeda. Its leader fought against the U.S. in Iraq and was a member of the Islamic State. These groups’ animosity towards Israel and violent threats against it are well known. The United Nations has documented widespread human rights abuses in the territory under HTS control before it took over the rest of the country. These include the detention and sometimes execution of civilians and human rights workers for crimes such as violating religious law or perceived affiliation with opposing parties.

Many Western countries are hoping that HTS has turned over a new leaf, and now that it is governing all of Syria it will live in peace with its neighbors and not repeat the previous regime’s atrocities. There is talk of lifting its terrorist designation if it takes steps in that direction. Let’s hope that’s what happens. But in the meantime, it makes sense not to allow them to possess advanced arms and maybe even chemical weapons.

Of course countries can’t be permitted to bomb one another’s military equipment whenever they wish. If countries did that whenever they got the chance for the sole purpose of preventing unspecified, hypothetical future attacks there would never be peace or security.

But International law is mistaken in immediately bestowing all the privileges of sovereignty onto an armed group just because it managed to seize territory with a permanent population, thereby qualifying as a state. A felon may be a U.S. citizen, but even if they say they will change their ways they still must wait to possess a firearm. A rebel group that overthrows a government and takes over a country may thereby join the community of nations, but it should not be allowed to inherit a vast store of weapons until it proves it will handle them responsibly.

It's important to note that it looks like the U.S. and Israel have managed to conduct their Syria bombing campaigns without causing any loss of life. They may be legally in the wrong, but morally they’re in the right. If the new regime in Syria fails to fulfil its promises, persecutes minorities, and seeks to attack Israel, international law will have been shown to be foolish and them to be wise.