Last week marked the six-year anniversary of the brutal civil war in Syria, and it appears the general public -- and even world leaders, for that matter -- have come to terms with the ceaseless bloodshed, colossal devastation and stream of homeless refugees. This, at least, until things go too far, as in the case with Syrian President Bashar Assad's chemical attack in Idlib province on Tuesday. Then, rest assured, the desperate cries over the world's silent apathy seem to reverberate. The moral consternation over the international community's helplessness is immense, but from the perspective of international law one can raise more complex questions. Why does the mechanism established by the international community, i.e. the United Nations and its Security Council, not promote effective and efficient action in Syria, to help end the bloodshed? Is the system created by the global community to deal with the use of unconventional weapons, to paraphrase philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the best one possible- The mechanism's Achilles heel, of course, is the power -- granted to the five countries that won or who helped win World War II (the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and its heir, Russia, France and China) -- to veto Security Council resolutions. In the case of Syria, the consequence in simple: Anything that goes against Russian interests will not be ratified by the Security Council. This is why resolutions passed by the council -- pertaining, for example, to dismantling chemical weapons stockpiles or forging a new diplomatic arrangement in Syria -- have fallen under Chapter 6 of the U.N. Charter, which stipulates that resolutions are not legally binding. The most recent chemical attack highlights this legal loophole. Veto power saves Assad and other suspects in his regime from standing trial at the International Criminal Court at The Hague for serious war crimes. Any investigation against individuals, who are citizens of countries without ICC membership, requires approval from the Security Council. The Russian interest, therefore, provides Assad and his regime protection in this regard. Although the U.S. and NATO have acted without the Security Council's approval (the U.S. in Iraq in 2003; NATO in Yugoslavia in 1999), justification for such action, from an international law standpoint, is dubious. Legal justification in such cases is offered as humanitarian intervention, meaning that countries can forcefully enter other countries to prevent severe human rights abuses. However, the vague nature of legitimate interventionism, in which humanitarianism can potentially be used as cover for action on behalf of political or economic interests, undermines its validity from an international law perspective. It appears, therefore, that the legal system established by the international community, via the United Nations and ICC, has in fact done more to paralyze the world than to make it apathetic. Inaction is not just a moral issue; it is also a legal one. Legitimate interventionist action in Syria is not possible without radically changing the international legal framework. With that, changing the aforementioned legal framework and annulling the veto system requires dismantling the United Nations, because countries with veto power also have power to veto changes to the U.N. Charter. Such change is not to be expected in the foreseeable future. Dr. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen is a senior lecturer at the Shaarei Mishpat Academic Center of Law and Science.
