نویسندگان

1 گروه حقوق بین الملل دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران.

2 کارشناس ارشد سازمان های بین المللی و حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده روابط بین الملل، تهران، ایران

3 عضو هیات علمی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

حملات متعدد ائتلاف آمریکایی به سوریه طی سال‌های 2014 تا 2018 که با بهانه‌جویی‌های مختلف اعم از مبارزه با داعش یا نوعی از مداخلۀ بشردوستانه به‌منظور مقابله با کاربرد ادعایی تسلیحات شیمیایی صورت گرفته، تمامیت بند 4 مادۀ 2 منشور ملل متحد را خدشه‌دار ساخته است. نظریات حقوقی مختلف و البته غیرقابل قبولی از جمله «تئوری عدم تمایل و عدم توانایی»، «تئوری بسط مفهوم دفاع مشروع دسته‌جمعی عراق علیه داعش در خاک سوریه»، نظریۀ «ابهام خلاقانه و سازندۀ قطعنامۀ 2249» و «تئوری رضایت ضمنی» در توجیه حملات ائتلاف به رهبری آمریکا علیه مواضع داعش در خاک سوریه طرح شده است. در خصوص حمله به آنچه تأسیسات سلاح‌های شیمیایی دولت سوریه نامیده شده، به استدلال‌هایی همچون «اقدامات تلافی‌جویانه به‌منظور مقابله با کاربرد تسلیحات شیمیایی»، «مداخلۀ بشردوستانه در بستر اجرای کنوانسیون سلاح‌های شیمیایی» و «تمایز میان مشروعیت و قانونی بودن مداخلۀ نظامی» به‌صورت صریح یا ضمنی استناد شده است. این نوشتار به‌منظور پاسخگویی به این پرسش که «چرا حملات آمریکا و متحدانش به سوریه در خلال سال‌های 2014 تا 2018 غیرقانونی تلقی می‌شود؟»، با روشی توصیفی - تحلیلی به بررسی نظریات و استدلال‌های حقوقی مطرح‌شده در مورد این حملات می‌پردازد و این فرضیه را آزمون می‌کند که «حملات آمریکا و متحدانش به سوریه در قالب هیچ‌یک از استثنائات وارد بر بند 4 مادۀ 2 منشور یعنی مواد 42 و 51 قرار نگرفته و از طرفی دیگر عنصر رافع وصف متخلفانه یعنی رضایت دولت سوریه نیز احراز نشده است؛ بدین‌ترتیب، حملات مزبور غیرقانونی تلقی می‌شوند».

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Prohibition of Use of Force and US and Allies Attacks on Syria during 2014-2018

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ahmad Reza Mobini 1
  • Javad Mobini 2
  • pouria Askari 3

1 department of international law, faculty of law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran.

2 MA, in international organizations and international law, Faculty of International relations, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Prof. Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Allameh Tabatabaee University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

US and allies multiple attacks on Syria during 2014-2018 with the excuses of, inter alia, fighting against ISIS and humanitarian intervention to prevent claimed use of chemical weapons is in breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Several unacceptable arguments including: “The unwilling and unable theory”, “Iraq collective self-defense against ISIS in Syria”, “The creative and constructive ambiguity of S/RES/2249” and “Implied consent or passive consent theory” have been put forwarded to justify US-led coalition attacks on ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, in an attempt to justify attacks on so-called Syrian chemical facilities, it has been explicitly or implicitly resorted to some invalid arguments including: “Strikes on Syria in retaliation for chemical attack”, “Humanitarian intervention for Chemical Weapons Convention implementation” and “The distinction between the legitimacy and legality of military intervention”. In order to answer the question that “Why do the US and allies attacks against Syria during 2014-2018 are illegal?”, this paper descriptively and analytically consider the deployed arguments supporting the above-mentioned attacks and examines this hypothesis: “the aforementioned attacks are international wrongful acts as they cannot be considered as self-defense or collective security system outlined respectively in Article 51 and Article 42 of the UN Charter. On the other hand, the valid consent of Syria, which may preclude the wrongfulness of these attacks, has not been obtained; so, US and allies’ attacks against Syria during 2014-2018 are illegal”.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Progressive Development of the Rules Governing Use of Force
  • Self-Defense
  • Syria
  • Prohibition of the Use of Force
  • ISIS
  • SC/RES/2249

1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. آکهرست، مایکل (1372). کلیات حقوق بین‌الملل، ترجمۀ دکتر مهراب داراب‌پور، تهران: جهان معاصر.

2. کاسسه، آنتونیو (1375). نقش زور در روابط بین‌الملل، ترجمۀ مرتضی کلانتریان، تهران: فاروس.

 

ب) مقالات

3. الهویی نظری، حمید (1394). «ارتباط‌های سیستمیک مادۀ 51 منشور ملل متحد»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 45، ش 2.

4. باقرزاده، محمدرضا (1387). «اقدام تلافی‌جویانۀ آمریکا در افغانستان در آینۀ حقوق بین‌الملل»، کتابخانۀ دیجیتالی تبیان.

https://library.tebyan.net/fa/Viewer/Text/146881/1

5. زمانی، سید قاسم؛ نوری وحید (1391). «بحران غزه در ترازوی مسئولیت حمایت»، فصلنامۀ روابط خارجی، سال چهارم، ش 3.

6. زمانی، سید قاسم (1374). «توجیه کاربرد غیرقانونی زور در قالب دفاع مشروع»، مجلۀ سیاست دفاعی، شمارۀ مسلسل 12، سال سوم، ش 4.

7. شریفی طراز کوهی، حسین؛ مبینی، جواد (1393). «تحلیل حقوقی مداخلۀ نظامی ناتو در لیبی در پرتو دکترین مسئولیت حمایت»، فصلنامۀ روابط خارجی، سال ششم، ش 3.

8. قادری، سید محمدهادی؛ قربان‌نیا، ناصر (1392). «دکترین مسئولیت حمایت و تلاش برای مقابله با فجایع انسانی»، فصلنامۀ روابط خارجی، سال پنجم، ش 1.

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

9. Brownlie, Ian (1963). International law and the Use of force by states, Oxford, Clarendon press.

10. Gray, Christine (2008). International Law and Use of Force, third edition, New York, Oxford University Press.

11. Hehir, Aiden (2010). Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

12. Hoffman, Julia; nollkaemper, Andre (2012). Responsibility to Protect: From Principle to Practice, Amsterdam Pallas Publications- Amsterdam University Press.

13. Lubell, Noam (2010). Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors, Oxford University Press.

14. Newman, Michael (2009). Humanitarian Intervention confronting thecontradictions, New York, Columbia University Press.

 

B) Articles

15. Barreto, Joao Paulo de Mello (2014). “The Dubious Legality of Responding to ISIL”, Columbia Undergraduate law review (online).

16. Bethlehem, Daniel (2012). "Self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by non state actors" American Journal of International Law, Vol. 106, No. 4.

17. Brownlie, Ian (1958). "International law and the activities of armed bands" The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 7, No.4.

18. Hakimi, Monica (2015). "Defensive Force against Non-State Actors: The State of Play", international Law Studies, Vol.91, No. 1.

19. Khan, Bilal (2014). “The Use of Force against ISIS”, JURIST-Hotline.

20. McCredie, Jeffrey Allen, (1987). “The April 14, 1986 Bombing of Libya: Act of Self Defense or Reprisal”, Case W. Res. J. Int'l L, Vol: 19, Issue: 2.

21. Reinold, Theresa (2011). "State weakness, irregular warfare, and the right to self-defense post-9/11”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.105, No. 2.

22. Roberts, Anthea (2008). “Legality v. Legitimacy: Can Uses of Force be Illegal but Justified?” chapter in: Human Rights, Intervention, and the Use of Force, P. Alston, E. Macdonald, eds., Oxford University Press, 2008.

23. Ruys, Tom. (2008). "Quo Vadit Jus as Bellum: A Legal Analysis of Turkey's Military Operations against the PKK in Northern Iraq", Melb. J. Int'l L. Vol. 9.

24. Stuart, Hannah. (2014). "the legal case for British Military Action against Islamic state in Iraq and Syria", The Henry Jackson Society, Center for the Response to Radicalization and terrorism, Policy paper No.2.

25. Van Steenberghe, Raphaël (2010). "Self-Defence in Response to Attacks by Non-state Actors in the Light of Recent State Practice: A Step Forward?" Leiden journal of international law, Vol. 23, No.1.

26. Wilmshurst, Elizabeth (2006). "The Chatham House principles of international law on the use of force in self-defence" International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 4.

27. Zemanek, Karl (2013). “Armed Attack, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law”, article last updated October 2013.

 

C) Online Articles

28. Akande, Dapo & Milanovic, Marko, (November 21, 2015), “The Constructive Ambiguity of the Security Council’s ISIS Resolution”, (EJILTalk). https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/

29. Goldsmith, Jack & Hathawaym Oona, (December 21, 2018), “Bad Legal Arguments for the Syria Airstrikes”, LawFare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/bad-legal-arguments-syria-airstrikes

30. Goodman, Ryan, (August 28, 2014), “International Law on Airstrikes against ISIS in Syria”, Just security. https://www.justsecurity.org/14414/international-law-airstrikes-isis-syria/

31. Hakimi, Monica, (April 27, 2018), “Pigs, Positivism, and the Jus ad Bellum”, EJILTalk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/pigs-positivism-and-the-jus-ad-bellum/

32. Hakimi, Monica, (2018, April 15), “The Attack on Syria and the Contemporary Jus ad Bellum”, EJILTalk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-attack-on-syria-and-the-contemporary-jus-ad-bellum/

33. Hosseinnejad, Katayoun & Pouria Askary, (May 21, 2018), “The International Community and the Challenge to the Rule of Law: The Future of Iran Nuclear Deal”, Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2018/05/21/the-international-community-and-the-challenge-to-the-rule-of-law-the-future-of-iran-nuclear-deal/

34. Lederman, Marty, (April 6, 2017), “Why the strikes against Syria probably violate the U.N. Charter and (therefore) the U.S. Constitution”, Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/39674/syrian-strikes-violate-u-n-charter-constitution/

35. Milanovic, Marko, (April 15, 2018), “The Syria Strikes: Still Clearly Illegal”, EJILTalk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-syria-strikes-still-clearly-illegal/

36. Milanovic, Marko, (April 7, 2017), “The Clearly Illegal US Missile Strike in Syria”, EJILTalk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-clearly-illegal-us-missile-strike-in-syria/

37. O'Connell, Mary Ellen, (April 12, 2018), “Unlawful Reprisals to the Rescue against Chemical Attacks?” EJILTalk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/unlawful-reprisals-to-the-rescue-against-chemical-attacks/

38. Van Steenberghe, Raphael, (October 23, 2015), “From Passive Consent to Self-Defence after the Syrian Protest against the US-led Coalition”, EJIlTalk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/13758-2/

 

D) Cases

39. ICJ, (2005), Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda), (Judgment of December 19).

40. ICJ, (2004), Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory opinion of July 9).

41. ICJ, (1996), Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, (advisory opinion of July 8).

42. ICJ, (1986), Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), (Judgment of June 27).

43. ICJ, (1971), Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), (Advisory Opinion of June 21).

 

E) UNSCResolutions:

44. S/RES/2249 (2015), [Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts]

45. S/RES/1973 (2011), [The situation in Libya]

46. S/RES/1378 (2001), [The situation in Afghanistan]

47. S/RES/1373 (2001), [Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts]

48. S/RES/1368 (2001), [Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts]

49. S/RES/678 (1990), [Iraq-Kuwait (29 November)]

50. S/RES/573 (1985), [Israel-Tunisia]

51. S/RES/270 (1969), [Middle East]

52. S/RES/248 (1968), [Middle East]

53. S/RES/228 (1966), [The Palestine Question]

54. S/RES/188 (1964), [Complaint by Yemen]

55. S/RES/111 (1956), [The Palestine Question]

 

F) Documents

56. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, (29 April 1997).

57. Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, (2002), Recommendation 1580, “Situation in Georgia and the consequences for the stability of the Caucasus region”.

58. GA Res. 60/1, (2005) World Summit Outcome.

59. ILC, (2001), Commentaries to the draft articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts.

60. Lang, Arabella, (2015), “Legal basis for UK military action in Syria", House Of Commons Library, Briefing paper Number 7404.

61. Policy paper published by UK Prime Minister Office in 14 April 2018, “Syria action – UK government legal position”.

62. Security Council (2008), Special research report (No. 1). Available at: www.securitycouncilreport.org

63. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, 24 October 1970, (A/RES/25/2625).

64. The White House, (2014), “Letter from the President - War Powers Resolution Regarding Iraq”, Office of the Press Secretary.Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/17/letter-president-war-powers-resolution-regarding-iraq

 

G) News websites

65. Arimatsu, Louise & Michael Schmitt, (2014, Oct. 6), “The legal basis for the war against Isis remains contentious”, The Guardian.

66. Bolen, Michael, (2014, Oct. 3),“Harper Says Canada Will Bomb ISIS In Syria If Murderous Despot Asks Him To”, Huffington Post Canada.

66.  “France may launch strikes in Syria in self defense: Fabius” (2015, Sep. 11), RFI.

67. “Full-Text: U.S. President Trump announces strikes on Syria”, (April 14, 2018), Reuters.

68. Gutman, Roy, (2014, Aug. 25), “U.S. says airstrikes on Syria are not imminent”, McClatchy Washington Bureau.

69. “Iran Leader Criticizes U.S. Strikes on ISIS in Syria, Calls Them Illegal”, (23 Sept. 2014), NBC News.

70. "Obama ISIS Speech Reaction: Germany, Turkey Won't Join Airstrikes In Syria; UK Won't Rule Them Out", (2014, September 11), International Business Times.

71. “Russia Warns US against Strikes on Islamic State in Syria”, (2014, Sep. 11), BBC News.

72. Sink, Justing, (2014), “white house won’t commit to asking congress for Syria strike”, TheHil.

73. “Syria air strikes: President Trump statement in full”, (2018, Apr. 14), BBC.

74. Weller, Marc, (2015, Nov. 23),"UN resolution on IS “extraordinary step”, BBC news online.

75. Wintour, Patrick, (2014, Sep. 4), “UK could launch strikes against Isis in Syria without Assad's support, says PM”, The Guardian.