Comment: Why Bombing Syria Is A Minefield

Is it legal for the British to bomb Syria? Before David Cameron can recommend to Parliament that the RAF starts to do just that, he needs the assurance from his Attorney General, the Government's lawyer, that it is legal to do so.

 

You have reasonable grounds for bombing.. if another country is bombing you; if another country is threatened and asks you for help; if another country or an element in that country are ruled to threaten you - and importantly, the UN Security Council unanimously approves of bombing.

 

Seems straightforward. It is not. 

 

For example, Russia has been asked by Syria to bomb anti-government rebels. But that rebellion could grow so large that it represents the true hopes of the majority of Syrians. At that point it is argued that Russia was only maintaining a dictatorship. 

 

Therefore it would appear that Britain could join in the bombing to help the majority voice. Not necessarily. Assad's government was elected. He is the legitimate authority. Bombing that authority is a declaration of war, and any country that does (including the UK) is subject to all the rules of conflict - including the examination that an act of bombing may constitute a war crime.

 

 

Moreover, the mixed nature of the rebellion does not guarantee there would not be retribution and revenge politics on a grand and bloody scale if successful. Then a coalition bombing would fail to meet the ambitions of the UN definitions. Even now the international legality of Russia's military action could be challenged. That is a ludicrous notion in practice but a reasonable one in theory.

 

Syria's position is complex, especially as it suffers another condition of warfare. Because it is attacked by Sunni rebels, in particular Islamic State with its headquarters in Raqqa, it is reasonable to bomb those IS position in order to defend Assad in power. Russia could and does argue that position. Britain would be attacking IS positions, but not in defence of Assad. The UK would in effect be attacking its enemy IS and at the same time attacking Assad's positions. The Attorney General would have a hard time explaining that one.

 

The next legal angle is even more arcane. A member state of the UN has an obligation to make sure that no group on its territory threatens the people or territory of another country. The UK and others say that IS, having moved its operations into Europe, does exactly that. That could be the Attorney's trump card, but it too can be challenged. Because if Syria is unable to attack IS (or does not wish to) that is not grounds enough for the British or anyone else to bomb Syria.

 

There are many codicils to the rarely tested legality of bombing. Even a claim that IS might attack the UK at any moment is not enough to guarantee that the Prime Minister will not be challenged when he goes to the Commons.

 

The safest authority is of course a UN Resolution. But Russia is likely to veto that and Mr Cameron has already said that he does not need the authority of the UN to do what he thinks is obvious. We have been here before.