Uniting for Peace Not Aggression: Responding to Chemical Weapons in Syria Without Breaking the Law

In April 2018 in response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria, the USA, UK and France attacked Syrian chemical weapons facilities without Security Council authorisation. The intervention was illegal but widely supported. The events epitomised a declining respect for the international rules on the use of force and for the international institutions charged with implementing those rules-a trend that has correlated with an escalation in violent conflict throughout the world. In other words, the credibility of international law and institutions is declining just as we need them most. This article describes the chemical weapons attack in Syria in April 2018, the retaliatory strikes, and the justifications and reactions that followed. It then describes the applicable legal framework (the UN Charter, humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect and the Chemical Weapons Convention), and the normative implications of the strikes. It is argued that international law recognises neither a right of humanitarian intervention nor a right to use force to prevent the use of chemical weapons. What international law does recognise, as articulated in the General Assembly's Uniting for Peace Resolution, is the residual responsibility of the General Assembly to maintain international peace and security when the Security Council fails. It is argued that where the Security Council has clearly failed to exercise its responsibility, it is incumbent upon the Council through procedural vote to refer the situation to the General Assembly, and it is then incumbent upon the Assembly to act on its secondary responsibility. This is an under-utilised procedure that allows concerned States to respond to atrocities such as those in Syria without breaking the law