Professor of International Law, Marcelo Kohen, was interviewed by the Swiss daily newspaper  Le Temps.

Le Temps: Would a military intervention to save civilian lives in Syria following the chemical weapons attack be legal?

Professor Marcelo Kohen: Without a green light from the UN Security Council (SC), it would be illegal. The legality of the attack would not be affected by how long bombing lasts, the targets chosen or humanitarian pretexts. When a majority of nine voices approves action in the Security Council, but the decision is blocked by a veto of one or several permanent members, the General Assembly may be seised. In the case of Syria, this route has not been envisaged.

François Hollande has evoked the “responsibility to protect civilians” defined in 2005 by the United Nations General Assembly. Would this give legitimacy to military action?

The “Responsibility to Protect” is not a concept which permits states to act unilaterally. Even if the investigation by the UN proves that the Syrian government was behind the chemical weapons attack, the SC needs to approve military intervention. In case of veto, the General Assembly remains the organ that can speak on behalf of the international community. The chemical attack constitutes a serious violation of humanitarian law and is a crime against humanity. The SC could bring the matter to the International Criminal Court, which Switzerland has proposed for several months, in vain. François Hollande speaks of “punishing” the Syrian regime. This could not constitute a ground to justify military action.

What would be the consequences of an intervention without a United Nations mandate?

The scenario which is unfolding is starting to look a lot like the attack against Iraq in 2003, which took place outside of all legal frameworks. We know what happened in that case. The collective security system is weakened as are the institutions which are part of it. But like in Iraq, the United States and their allies are hiding behind impunity, knowing that their actions cannot be sanctioned by any institutions. Finally, the supporters of the military option take for granted that the use of force is a solution to the problem. There is no guarantee that after air strikes the civilians’ situation will improve. On the contrary, military intervention risks plunging Syria into a permanent crisis, slowing down the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and bolstering the Iranian regime.

This article was published in French in Le Temps on 29 August. It represents the opinion of the author.

Marcelo Kohen is an associate member of the Institute of International Law and a professor of international law at the Graduate Institute since 1995. He has also worked as a counsel and advocate for a number of States before the International Court of Justice and has been visiting professor at several European Universities.

Marcelo Kohen est professeur de droit international à l’Institut depuis 1995. Ses domaines d’expertise portent, entre autres, sur les conflits territoriaux et frontaliers, les Nations Unies, la Cour internationale de Justice, le Conseil de sécurité, le Moyen Orient et l’ex-Yougoslavie.

Interview by Boris Mabillard.

This interview was published in Le Temps on 29 August  2013. It represents the opinion of the Author.