Abstract
ABSTRACT The scale and gravity of the Syrian conflict has led to calls for the international community to fulfil its responsibility to protect the people. Despite mounting evidence of atrocity crimes committed by the Syrian government and ISIL, the U.S. administrations’ legal justifications for the use of force have centred on more established – albeit in the Syrian context controversial – legal justifications, illustrating the limitations of the Responsibility to Protect in providing a legal framework for the use of force on humanitarian grounds. Nonetheless, the Syrian crisis represents a critical juncture in the evolution of the Responsibility to Protect and the legal justifications provided by the U.S. have implications on this development, particularly with regards to the doctrine’s third pillar on the use of force.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
