Intervention in Syria: A Lawmaking Moment?

Abstract

In June 2014, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a Sunni extremist group, made significant military and territorial gains against other rebel groups in the ongoing civil war in Syria. U.S. President Barack Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes against ISIL that September. He later declared that he would seek from the U.S. Congress a new authorization to use military force (AUMF) against ISIL in place of the existing AUMF, which has been the U.S. legal authority for military action since 2001. While a new AUMF would address the President’s U.S. constitutional authority to use force in Syria, finding a basis of authority to use force under international law, either against the Syrian regime or against ISIL, has presented a challenge. This paper will discuss the Obama administration’s approach to the use of force against the Syrian regime in 2013 and against ISIL in 2014 under international law and evaluate arguments that the Obama administration has made and could make in support of a military intervention. Part I will provide background on the conflict in Syria. Part II will analyze the possible arguments for the use of force in Syria under the U.N. Charter. Part III will consider possible arguments for humanitarian intervention.