شبیه‌سازی اقدام نظامی آمریکا علیه سوریه در چارچوب ملاحظات حقوق بین‌الملل

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانش آموخته دکتری تخصصی روابط بین الملل، دانشگاه آزاد اصفهان، اصفهان ایران

چکیده

چکیده
هدف این مقاله بحث در مورد پیامدهای حقوقی توسل به‌زور توسط آمریکا علیه سوریه در سال 2013 و دیگر مسائل مختلف حقوقی مرتبط با درگیری‌ها در سوریه است. ایالات متحده معتقد است استفاده از سلاح‌های شیمیایی در سوریه باعث ایجاد بحران انسانی شده و در نتیجه بر اساس اصل مداخلة بشردوستانۀ مسئولیت حمایت، اقدام نظامی توجیه‌پذیر خواهد بود.پرسش کلیدی نیز پس از حمله شیمیایی در سوریه بر این پایه استوار است که آیا اقدام نظامی احتمالیِ ایالات متحده علیه سوریه در قالب حقوق بین‌الملل قابل توجیه است؟ بر همین اساس، در اینجابحث و گفتگو بر مشروعیت مداخله بشردوستانه در درگیری‌های مسلحانه غیربین‌المللی متمرکز شده و همچنین استدلال‌هایی که در قلمرو آموزۀ مسئولیتحمایت مطرح می‌شود. اما به‌واقع ما بحث را چنین پی خواهیم گرفت که ایالات متحده چه استدلال‌هایی برای توجیه عمل خود می‌تواند اقامه کند؟ چه استدلال‌هایی در رد کردن توجیه آمریکا و غیرقانونی دانستن عمل وی وجود دارد؟ رویکردهای نظری و عملی به حقوق بین‌الملل پاسخ‌های متفاوتی به این سؤال می‌دهند.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Simulation of U.S. Military Action against Syria within the Framework of International law

نویسنده [English]

  • Masoud Rezaei
Ph.D. in International Relations, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to discuss the legal implications of the use of force by the U.S. against Syria in 2013, and various other legal issues relevant to the conflict in Syria. The U.S. believes that the use of chemical weapons worsens the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and therefore humanitarian intervention under Responsibility to Protect is justified. The key question after the chemical attack in Syria is that the military action by the U.S. against Syria can be justified in terms of international law? The more important question is whether anything about the use of chemical weapons provides a distinct legal ground for action. Because of this, discussion focused on the legality of humanitarian intervention in non-international armed conflicts as well as the arguments surrounding the responsibility to protect. But in this debate, we argue thaht what are the arguments that the United States can make in favor of the international legality of such action, and what are the arguments against? Formalist and pragmatic approaches to international law provide very different answers.
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Syria
  • International Law
  • U.S
  • Chemical Weapons
  • The Use of Force
  • The Responsibility to Protect

 

 

الف. فارسی

امیدی، علی و مسعود رضائی(1390)، «ملاحظات حقوقی جنگ روسیه و گرجستان»، فصلنامه تحقیقات سیاسی بین‌المللی، سال سوم، شماره 6، بهار.

ذاکریان، مهدی(1390)، «شبیه‌سازی در روابط بین‌الملل: مدل‌سازی و نظریه‌پردازی در ایران»، فصلنامه مطالعات بین‌المللی، سال هشتم، شماره 2.

 

ب. انگلیسی

 

 

Ackerman, David M. (2003), “International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force against Iraq”, CRS Report for Congress.

 

Ahmed, Nafeez, (2013), “Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern”. The Guardian, August 30.

 

Art. 2(b), (xviii), “The language used, “employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices,” is that of the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol.

 

Bellamy Alex J. (2006), “Preventing Future Kosovos and FuturerWandas: the Responsibility to protect after the 2005 World Summit, Carnegie Council, (Policy Brief), http://www.cceia.org/media/Bellamy_Paper.pdf

 

Beth D. Nikitin,Mary, Paul K. Kerr andAndrew Feickert, (2013), Syria’s Chemical Weapons:Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, September 30,

 

Blake, Jillian  and Aqsa Mahmud, (2013), “A Legal “Red Line”? Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons in Civil Conflict”, Ucla Law Review Discourse, No.61. Disc. 244.

 

Blanchard, Christopher M., Carla E. Humud and Mary Beth D. Nikitin, (2014), Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response, Federation of American Scientists, January 15, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

 

Blank, Laurie R. and Geoffrey S. Corn, (2013), “Losing the Forest for the Trees: Syria, Law, and the Pragmatics of Conflict Recognition”, Vanderbilt journal of transnational law, Volume 46, May, Number 3.

 

Blix, Hans, (2013), “Even if Assad used chemical weapons, the west has no mandate to act as a global policeman,” The Guardian, August 28.

 

Brown, Hayes, (2013), “Senate Committee Passes Authorization for Military Strikes against Syria”, Think Progress, September 4.

 

Carswell, Andrew J. (2013), “Unblocking the UN Security Council: The Uniting for Peace Resolution”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Volume 18, Issue 3. Winter

 

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, Articles IX, XII, XIV.

 

Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, Article 51. 5 (1977)

 

Darcy, Shane, (2003), “The Evolution of the Law of belligerent Reprisals”, Military Law Review, Vol.175

 

Dozier, Kimberly and Matt Apuzzo, (2013), “AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no ‘slam dunk’,” Associated Press, August 29.

 

Hart, John, (2013), “Chemical and biological weapon programmes”, in: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, SIPRI YEARBOOK 2013

 

Hass, Michael, (2013), International Human Rights: A Comprehensive, 2nd Edition, Routledge

 

Landler, Mark and Michael R. Gordon, (2013), Air War in Kosovo Seen as Precedent in Possible Response to Syria Chemical Attack, New York Times, Aug. 23.

 

Mazzetti, Mark and Mark Landler, (2013), “U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria,” The New York Times, August 28,

 

Porter, Gareth, (2013), “In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe,”Inter Press Service, August 27

 

Richter, Paul, (2013) “John Kerry Says Syria Chemical Attack Killed at Least 1,429 People, L.A. Times, August 30,

 

Schmitt, Michael N. (2013), “The Syrian Intervention: Assessing the Possible International Law Justifications” International Law Studies, Volume 89.

 

Stahn, Carsten, (2007), “Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Jan)

 

United Nations and the Definition of Aggression, Law Teacher, http://www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/united-nations-and-the-definition-of-aggression-international-law-essay.php#ixzz2uScU6qyE

 

UN Security Council, Resolution 1540 (2004) [Non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction] (S/RES/1540), 2004

 

UN Security Council Resolution 688, U.N. Doc. S/R/288 (April 5, 1991)

 

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, preamble, U.N. DOC S/RES/1973 (March 17, 2011)

 

UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013) Adopted by the Security Council at its 7038th meeting, on 27 September 2013

 

UN Charter Chapter VII, Articles 39-42

 

UN Charter, Article 103

 

UN Charter Chapter VI, Articles 33 and 37

 

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

 

Williams, Paul R., J. Trevor Ulbrick and Jonathan Worboys, (2013), “Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis”, Case Western Reserve journal of International Law, vol. 45.

 

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: WILPF Statement, (2013), “Syria, Chemical Weapons, and Avoiding Military Intervention”, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, August 30.