Volume 24, Issue 85 (spring 2019)                   __Judicial Law Views __2012__, 24(__59__): __224200 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

, mosavi@ujsas.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1262 Views)
On April 14, 2018, the United States, Britain and France launched missile attacks on specific targets in the Syrian Arab Republic, including the provinces of Damascus and Homs. According to coalition of three states, these attacks were followed by the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons and targeted solely against its chemical weapons facilities. What have in the days after the act been at the forefront of international law theorists and politicians, were the legality and legitimacy of the attack. Emmanuel Macron calls it legitimate and legal, Theresa May calls it legitimate and moral and Donald Trump considers it necessary, on time and human. At the state level, a few states condemned the action, some supported it, and the majority did not take a definite position. Lawyers also expressed different opinions: Some considered the attack as a clear violation of the three permanent members of the Security Council not only to Syria but also to the international law; some also justified the attack and argued for legitimacy. The present article is intended to analyze the attack in the context of public international law.
Full-Text [PDF 557 kb]   (326 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Critical & Analisis | Subject: International Law
Received: 2019/02/15 | Revised: 2019/09/15 | Accepted: 2019/05/20 | Published: 2019/09/15 | ePublished: 2019/09/15

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.