Abstract
This article explores the legal basis for the use of military force against Islamic State on the territory of Syria. The author examines three possible justifications for the U.S. led operation, namely: intervention by invitation of the Syrian authorities, Security Council authorization for the use of force and the right to self-defence. As a consequence of detailed analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the first two arguments are difficult to sustain. The most persuasive position seems to be that based on the right to individual and collective self-defence. This justification, however, requires a very careful analysis of conditions governing the exercise of the right to self-defence, which, taking into account the specificity of terrorist activities, sometimes may hinder the proper evaluation. This is evidenced by the fact, that not all states taking part in the air campaign against ISIS in Syria, are able to give a plausible justification for their action, allegedly based on the right to self-defence.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Prawnicza. Prawo
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.