El conflicto en Siria y el uso de la fuerza

Abstract

The war in Syria has been described as the greatest humanitarian crisis suffered after World War II. The primary focus of this PhD is to address the legitimacy of the use of force by the States involved in the conflic. - Goals To scrutinise the legality of these interventions, we have determined the following objectives. 1º- Review from an analytic point the historical antecedents and the development of the conflict: In this part, we have described the conditions of Syrian society and the causes of the civil war. We have also portrayed the role of each State involved in the conflict, with a special focus on Russia and the United States of America. 2º- Examine the use of force in the Syrian conflict: at this point, we have separated the two conflict scenarios (the civil war and the fight against Daesh), which have different objectives: - In relation to the civil war, we have attempted to determine whether the military actions conducted unilaterally by international actors during the conflict are under International Law. These military activities include the supply of weapons to the Syrian rebel forces, the participation of Russia supporting the Government, the interventions of neighbouring and regional countries such as Turkey, Israel or Iran and the response led by the United States, United Kingdom and France against the Syrian regime. -Regarding the operations against Daesh, we have discussed whether the airstrikes executed by the international coalition led by the United States and the rest of the States that have intervened in Syria against Daesh are in accordance with International Law. Methodology Concerning the methodology applied to research the historical background and development of the conflict we have made use of press reports, official statements by national leaders and the United Nations Assembly and the Security Council’s archive. Furthermore, we have conducted a bibliographic review of papers about the modern history of Syria. With reference to the use of force: we have undertaken a bibliographic review to show ‘the principle of prohibition of the use of force’s main aspects throughout its evolution -consulting the work of internationally acclaimed authors. United Nations documentation has also been examined: resolutions of the Security Council, the UN Assembly or the Secretary-General. Besides, we have consulted the judgments on the use of force issued by international courts such as the International Court of Justice. Ultimately, we have consulted the opinions of legal doctrine and blogs specialized in the area of conflict (European Journal of International Law, Lawfare, Opinio Juris, etc.). Results The results of this PhD show that the States involved in the Syrian conflict have not complied with International Law. The United Nations Charter established the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, merely allowing its use through the Security Council or, as an exception, in the case of legitimate defence. However, the Security Council has not taken armed measures in the Syrian crisis, which has led to procedures outside the law. Therefore, the armed actions to intervene in the Syrian civil war - carried out by Russia, France, the United States, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, among others - have not been developedin agreement with the law. Likewise, most of the military interventions against Daesh have not been legal either, although they have shown that the limits of legitimate defence are changing since the United Nations Charter was made. To summarize, this PhD shows that the collective security system, established after the Second World War, has failed due to the use of the veto of permanent members, lacking a response to humanitarian crises with the magnitude of the Syrian war.