This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/legal-case-for-syria-airstrikes-bolstered-by-paris-terror-attacks

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Legal case for Syria airstrikes bolstered by Paris terror attacks Legal case for Syria airstrikes bolstered by Paris terror attacks
(about 1 hour later)
The government’s legal case for bombing Syria has been transformed by the terror attacks in Paris and the resulting UN security council motion on 20 November, which urged states “to take all necessary measures” against Islamic State. The government’s legal case for bombing Syria has been transformed by the terror attacks in Paris and the resulting UN security council motion on 20 November, which urged states to “take all necessary measures” against Islamic State.
Though not all lawyers accept that the resolution is sufficient to justify military action, David Cameron included the entire text of the UN document in his manifesto for military action in Syria.Though not all lawyers accept that the resolution is sufficient to justify military action, David Cameron included the entire text of the UN document in his manifesto for military action in Syria.
A range of legal arguments, mainly relying on the principle of legitimate self-defence, are deployed by the prime minister to demonstrate that airstrikes are permitted under international law.A range of legal arguments, mainly relying on the principle of legitimate self-defence, are deployed by the prime minister to demonstrate that airstrikes are permitted under international law.
The UK has already been involved in airstrikes in Syria – providing reconnaissance support for French attacks on Raqqa and carrying out targeted drone killings of UK citizens said to have been coordinating terrorist attacks on London.The UK has already been involved in airstrikes in Syria – providing reconnaissance support for French attacks on Raqqa and carrying out targeted drone killings of UK citizens said to have been coordinating terrorist attacks on London.
Article 51 of the UN charter permits countries to engage in action on the grounds of individual or collective self-defence – but the threat to national security has to be imminent. Article 51 of the UN charter permits countries to engage in action on the grounds of individual or collective self-defence, but the threat to national security has to be imminent.
The prime minister’s document also relies on a further justification, namely that in participating in collective action in support of the Baghdad government in its campaign against Islamic State targeting Isis bases in neighbouring Syria, from which attacks on Iraq are being organised, is lawful. The prime minister’s document also relies on a further justification, namely that participating in collective action in support of the Baghdad government targeting Isis bases in neighbouring Syria, from which attacks on Iraq are being organised, is lawful.
“The underlying considerations which justified collective self-defence of Iraq for UK activity in Syria in 2014 remain today,” Cameron’s document explains.“The underlying considerations which justified collective self-defence of Iraq for UK activity in Syria in 2014 remain today,” Cameron’s document explains.
“The collective self-defence of Iraq provides a clear legal basis for the UK to increase its contribution to the coalition’s efforts against ISIL in Syria by taking direct military action itself, provided such activity meets the ongoing requirements of necessity and proportionality.” “The collective self-defence of Iraq provides a clear legal basis for the UK to increase its contribution to the coalition’s efforts against Isil in Syria by taking direct military action itself, provided such activity meets the ongoing requirements of necessity and proportionality.”
But sceptics of military action point out that the UN security council motion was not adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter, which provides the framework within which the security council may authorise the use of force. Sceptics of military action point out that the UN security council motion was not adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter, which provides the framework within which the security council may authorise the use of force.
Dr Aldo Zammit Borda, senior lecturer in law at Anglia Ruskin University, said: “Rather than providing an independent legal basis for the use of force in Syria, this resolution provides a political legitimisation of measures taken against ISIL in compliance with existing international law.” Aldo Zammit Borda, senior lecturer in law at Anglia Ruskin University, said: “Rather than providing an independent legal basis for the use of force in Syria, this resolution provides a political legitimisation of measures taken against Isil in compliance with existing international law.
“While the use of humanitarian intervention may appear amply justified in this case, in view of the atrocities committed by ISIL, MPs should be mindful of the dangerous precedent they would be setting if they decide to go down this road.” “While the use of humanitarian intervention may appear amply justified in this case, in view of the atrocities committed by Isil, MPs should be mindful of the dangerous precedent they would be setting if they decide to go down this road.”