The International Humanitarian Law Crisis in regards to Airstrikes
The main issue that arose during the armed conflict in Syria and Iraq was to identify the real culprit behind huge humanitarian crisis. The armed attacks were strong from both the sides i.e. ISIS on one and other State actors with Iraq on the other but which side is to be blamed for causing casualties to millions. The international community has always restrained the use of arms and focused on resolving disputes by various peaceful means. Even the UN Charter has confined the scope of armed interventions and these have only been recognized in situations of breach of peace, threat to peace or when there is an imminent act of aggression35 along with the instance of self-defense under Article 51. However, the scope of these armed interventions has been extended over time by seeking authorization from General Assembly in special circumstances. As a practice, States have invited other States to assist when the former is confronted with insurgents and it has become unable to evade the danger on its national peace and security. This practice has been followed by Iraq and thereby the airstrikes conducted against the ISIS by US and other forces are deemed to be lawful as per customs and norms of the contemporary international humanitarian law. However, it is equally important to note that US has been involved in conducting airstrikes not only in Iraq wherein it was invited but also Syria without having any request from its government. To accord legality to such airstrikes, various new rules and amendments to the humanitarian law have been proposed in regards to the ‘unable or unwilling’ government. Even when the proponents of the unable or unwilling rationale attempted to bring this concept of unwillingness and inability within the boundaries of the rule of self-defense or humanitarian intervention, there have been major contradicting views that hold that this rationale is not appropriate to fit to the basic conditions of legitimate self-defense and it fails to fulfill the fundamental objections as given under the humanitarian intervention. The international humanitarian law has been molded to suit the actions done by US and other State actors in the Syrian crisis. The main object being to nullify the effect and regard these actions as legal and justified. The main aim of these modifications is to authorize the military actions of an outsider State when a State seeks its assistance in evading the non-State actors present within it. However, what is more important to consider is whether changing the humanitarian law is beneficial for the international community at large to fight with armed terrorists’ groups. Since, the world at large is facing with the problem of terrorist organizations hampering their peace and security, thus the validity of these actions is required to be checked in their regard.
Unfulfilled Obligations of Security Council to intervene and resolve the Syrian Crisis
The international body, which is responsible for maintaining and ensuring peace and security at the global level is The Security Council. Resolution 224936 passed by the Security Council had clearly affirmed that ISIS comprises of a global organization, which acts as an unprecedented treat to the peace and security at global level. The threat posed by ISIS is of such a nature that it is omnipresent and has the capability to affect all Member States of the UN and other regions of the globe irrespective of how far they are from the real zones of conflict. Further, it has been recognized by the Council that ISIS has intentions to carry out armed conflicts all over the world in order to uphold their values and religions over other.