The Syrian Conflict as a Test Case for the Limits of the International Community and International Law: Global Politics and State Sovereignty Versus Human Rights Protection.

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The Syrian civil war began in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring movement. It soon became internationalized, attracting the spill-in of external actors into the region and birthing the destructive Syrian conflict that continues ten years later. The Syrian conflict has given rise to the worst refugee and humanitarian crisis of the twenty-first century. The intractability of the conflict is attributed to a deadlocked United Nations Security Council, which remains undecided on the issue of humanitarian intervention as a breach of Syria's state sovereignty. This article seeks to answer the question of whether the concept of state sovereignty has taken precedence over a concern for human rights in Syria. This article delves into the conflict and examines the role of international law. It also examines the extensive use of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detentions and the use of chemical weapons in Syria as weapons of war. It then uses that context to examine the contemporary legal debate over the use of humanitarian intervention in Syria. The article concludes that although state sovereignty has functioned as a legal and normative barrier to the resolution of the conflict and that international law limits what can be done to halt the conflict and the abuses, the underlying issue to blame for not providing protection to the people of Syria is a lack of political will. The article notes that the failure to act on Syria, in terms of the Responsibility to Protect, which has spawned further violence and instability in the region, may have dire consequences in the future. The conflict may also lead to further conflict and human rights violations around the world. It is argued that international law and the UN need to be reformed to be able to deal with such issues more effectively and more often.