The ‘legality’ of the use of force by the Russian troops in Syria?

What has been the best aspect of studying abroad?

I’d definitely say the people you meet. LLM programmes in the US are extremely, extremely diverse. You get to meet people from all over, and the random conversations you’d have, the travelling, it all makes for such a great experience. What I get out of it is that there’s so many opportunities around you, in terms of events, not even affiliated with the law school or Berkeley, and you can learn so much just from going to San Francisco to whatever’s on, and meeting people, and you learvn so much more than you could ever learn in a classroom. I think that’s one really amazing thing about it.I know people who are doing language exchanges with other people in the course which is really cool, and I’m doing a language exchange for Mandarin. The amount of possibilities and opportunities that come from all these different people would be the best thing about studying in America.

KATHRYN CULHANE-TIPPER

JS LAW

The dispute over the legality of Russian intervention in Syria has grown in prominence in recent years. There are two main arguments on the legality of Russian intervention in Syria. First, whether Russian intervention was a legal act pursuant to Art 2 (4) of the United Nations (hereinafter UN) Charter. This provision strictly prohibits the use of force “against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. However, this provision is subject to two orthodox exceptions; namely, the use of force in selfdefense, and the use of force under the authorization of the Security Council per Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The second main argument regarding the legality of Russia’s intervention concerns whether the actions of the Russian forces violated international human law. This article will examine the former, focusing on whether the use of force was proportional to the purpose of this force. The first issue of whether the UN Charter legally permitted Russian intervention goes to the very heart of the charter. The charter strictly prohibits the use of force against any sovereign states. This principle of non-intervention in purely domestic matters, including civil wars, was reaffirmed in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). However, the Russian Government bypassed this restriction on the use of force, under Art 4 (2) of the UN Charter, by relying on the State request exception. Moreover, chapter 51 of the UN Charter permits the use of force by a state in self-defense or “collective self-defense”. Therefore, since the Assad regime is still the recognized ‘government’ of Syria by the UN, the Russian intervention was at the request of a sovereign state, and thus legal. In contrast, it has been argued that this regime doesn’t have the authority to request the intervention of another state as many countries have stopped recognizing the regime as a legitimate government of the Syrian people. The UK’s ambassador to Syria, Mr. Martin Longden, asserted that the Assad regime in Syria has “lost its legitimacy due to its atrocities against Syrian people”. Following this line of thinking, the Russian act of intervention, which infringed on the territorial integrity of the Syrian State, could be viewed as illegal. However, the Assad regime is backed by the Chinese and the Russian governments, who reject this argument and consider it an encroachment on Syria’s autonomy. It remains to be seen whether this issue of legitimacy will be clarified. Another issue that emerges is whether the use of force was strictly proportional to the purposes of this force. According to Russia, the purpose of the intervention was to target and eliminate extremist forces. However, according to the Director of the Institute for security and Development policy, 90% of Russian intervention did not target ISIL, the largest extremist force. Therefore, Russian intervention was ineffective in achieving the result for which it was sought. Furthermore, Russian intervention may have violated the basic principles of international human law, which attempt to regulate conflict to minimise human suffering. For instance, the principle of quantification requires that military forces should lessen the amount of side losses. However, the use of cluster bombs by Russian forces clearly violates this principle. According to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, the use of cluster bombs is prohibited, and as such Russia may be held accountable for committing war crimes. The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights have reported that mass numbers of civilian casualties were caused due to Russian intervention. Moreover, the targeting of civilian utilities such as hospitals violates the principles of necessity and differentiation. This lack of regard for civilian lives is widely rejected under international law. On top of all this, Russia may have