I disagree with the premise that Syria was a sovereign state whose rights passed to new leadership. Syria was and still is a failed state divided among a number of different groups who control portions of territory and people that years ago were part of a single sovereign state. That any one of these groups has the rights incident to a legitimate sovereign state is mistaken and there is no correct violation of international law in removing weapons and chemicals whose only purpose is harming others. The cloak of international law is really just thinly disguised antisemitism.
I’ve seen it argued that Israel is entitled to strike Syria because the two countries have technically still been in a state of war since 1973. What does intl law say about that?
I don’t believe that’s the case. First, there was an armistice agreement after the Yom Kippur war. But more important, a state of war isn’t something that can just be declared, instead it’s factual.
I think the conventional way to look at it would be that fifty plus years ago Syria and Israel were at war. But fortunately they haven’t been since (occasional attacks that have taken place over the years would likely not rise to the threshold of harm to be considered a war.) So at this point Syria and Israel are factually not at war, and any use of force would have to be justified as self-defense.
It is clear that an Al Qaeda offshoot should not have chemical weapons. Only Antonio Guterres needs this explaining.
I disagree with the premise that Syria was a sovereign state whose rights passed to new leadership. Syria was and still is a failed state divided among a number of different groups who control portions of territory and people that years ago were part of a single sovereign state. That any one of these groups has the rights incident to a legitimate sovereign state is mistaken and there is no correct violation of international law in removing weapons and chemicals whose only purpose is harming others. The cloak of international law is really just thinly disguised antisemitism.
The intentions of Syria's new rulers are not unclear when it comes to Israel.
I’ve seen it argued that Israel is entitled to strike Syria because the two countries have technically still been in a state of war since 1973. What does intl law say about that?
I don’t believe that’s the case. First, there was an armistice agreement after the Yom Kippur war. But more important, a state of war isn’t something that can just be declared, instead it’s factual.
I think the conventional way to look at it would be that fifty plus years ago Syria and Israel were at war. But fortunately they haven’t been since (occasional attacks that have taken place over the years would likely not rise to the threshold of harm to be considered a war.) So at this point Syria and Israel are factually not at war, and any use of force would have to be justified as self-defense.