Argument: There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others

Intervention is almost always about upholding ‘international norms’. Thus the attack on Syria is to disarm Syria of its banned chemical weapons because it “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” [1] With Iraq it was once again a norm against WMD with Tony Blair arguing “UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.” [2] This means that the nation that is going to engage in offensive action is attempting to prevent the breach of one international norm against certain weapons by breaching a norm against unauthorised military action.

In Kosovo it was even more hypocritical; NATO acted to make sure Milsovic “honor his own commitments and stop his repression” with the intent that “if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.” [3] So we will protect the norm against conflict by initiating a conflict of our own. Defending one international norm by breaching another is both pointless, because it undermines all norms, and hypocritical because it says those norms apply only to someone else.

[1] President Obama, ‘TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Aug. 31 statement on Syria’, The Washington Post, 31 August 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-31/politics/41635689_1_chemical-weapons-president-obama-regime

[2] ‘Full transcript of Blair's speech’, BBC News, 20 March 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2870581.stm

[3] Clinton, Bill, ‘Statement on Kososvo’, Miller Center University of Virginia, 24 March 1999, http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3932

Candidate 1: "The problem with relying on the Security Council is that it effectively means that the world is saying that five states can decide what is legal and what is not. Should the five countries who are probably most inclined to interventions, and are usually at loggerheads really be the ones to decide in such situations?"
Candidate 2: "Current International law on the use of force no longer matters

The international prohibition on the use of force has always been honoured in large part in the breach leading to the question of whether it should really be considered to be binding international law at all. Almost every major country has launched an illegal offensive action at some point; The USA has been involved in Kosovo and Iraq, the UK and France in attacking Egypt in 1953, China in attacking Vietnam in 1979, and Russia (as the USSR) in attacking Afghanistan also in 1979. In each instance of unilateral offensive action there will be justifications and a ‘smoke screen’ to make the conflict appear to be legal when in fact it is not. Major powers should simply admit that they do not regard the prohibition of the use of force as binding on them. Even without admitting it because international law is based upon state behaviour the use of force is legal as Michael J Glennon suggests “The consent of United Nations member states to the general prohibition against the use of force, as expressed in the Charter, has in this way been supplanted by a changed intent as expressed in deeds.” [1]

[1] Glennon, Michael J., ‘How War Left the Law Behind’, The New York Times, 21 November 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/opinion/how-war-left-the-law-behind.html"
Candidate 3: "A moral imperative to intervene

When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner.” Though this will only happen “should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”. [1] This is most certainly the case in Syria where the national authorities are the ones doing much of the killing.

It must be proved that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attacks; the US and UK say there is such evidence but so far the link is not crystal clear. Even the UK government accepts that there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”. [2] As the doctrine states peaceful means must have been tried – and in Syria after two years of conflict we can safely say a peaceful resolution is not in sight. And the use of force must be proportionate – which since there is no plan for a full scale invasion in Syria it will be. [3]

[1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’, Resolution 60/1 2005, p.30 http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/World%20Summit%20Outcome%20Document.pdf#page=30

[2] ‘Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime – UK Government legal position’, gov.uk, 29 August 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235098/Chemical-weapon-use-by-Syrian-regime-UK-government-legal-position.pdf

[3] Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?’, EIJL, Vol.10, 1999, http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/23.full.pdf"
Candidate 4: "Disarming illegal weapons

A second possible justification for intervention is when the state that is intervening against is itself breaking international law such as the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The intervention would then be to force compliance of the treaty; this would mean forcible disarmament of illegal weapons. In the case of Syria the country could be deemed to have violated its own legal obligations due to its having broken the 1925 Geneva Protocol [1] that bans the use of chemical weapons. Since manufacturing and possession of these weapons is banned if it is considered that having such weapons is a ‘gross violation of international law’ then a limited use of force to destroy these weapons could be considered to be legal. [2] This could be considered to be analogous to the police stepping in to confiscate a banned weapon, with no police internationally other states have to be the ones to step in.

[1] 1925 Geneva Protocol, League of Nations, 17 June 1925, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/1925GenevaProtocol.shtml

[2] Dr Wolff Heintschel, ‘Viewpoints: Is there legal basis for military intervention in Syria?’, BBC News, 29 August 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169"
Candidate 5: "An international norm is being breached one way or the other the only question is which one is to be breached. Those in favour of intervention consider that lives saved is worthwhile compared to the problems the breach of a norm against humanitarian intervention might create. All of these norms are there with the intention of saving lives; that is what a norm of preventing any infringement of sovereignty without UN approval is supposed to prevent – conflict and the lives lost this causes. But Internal conflict and genocide has since become much more the problem than aggression between states requiring a rebalancing of which norms are kept."
Candidate 6: "Uniting for Peace is well over sixty years old and yet has only been used once, to intervene against a full scale invasion of South Korea. This is hardly a good precedent for using against a state that is not involved in aggression against another state. The intent of Uniting for Peace is to restore “international peace” not domestic peace. It says nothing about intervening in internal conflicts without approval from the Security Council."

An international norm is being breached one way or the other the only question is which one is to be breached. Those in favour of intervention consider that lives saved is worthwhile compared to the problems the breach of a norm against humanitarian intervention might create. All of these norms are there with the intention of saving lives; that is what a norm of preventing any infringement of sovereignty without UN approval is supposed to prevent – conflict and the lives lost this causes. But Internal conflict and genocide has since become much more the problem than aggression between states requiring a rebalancing of which norms are kept.
