Obama's Syria bombing will violate international law

The Obama administration has explained why it thinks it has the legal authority to bomb IS in Iraq and Syria although many doubt whether the justifications are sound. No justification has yet been been given for the attacks under international law,.

Obama argues that the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11 to allow military action against Al Qaeda and those linked to the 9/11 attacks gives him the required authorization to use military forces against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. However,. Al Qaeda has disowned the Islamic State(IS) and IS has even fought against the group recognized by Al Qaeda in Syria the Al-Nusra Front. The Islamic State had nothing to do with 9/11.
 So far the Obama administration has not even attempted to provide a justification for attacking the Islamic State under international law. Since the Iraqi government has asked for and approved the US military actions against IS in Iraq, the problem will be to provide justification for attacks within Syria where the US refuses even to ask permission for its proposed bombing attacks. Both the Syrians and Russians claim any attacks in Syria would violate both international law with respect to armed conflict and also the UN charter unless authorized by the Assad government or a UN resolution.
The US answer appears to be that if and when the US actually carries out military action in Syria it will come up with the justification then. The moral appears to be to act first and justify after. Caitlin Hayden explained to the Daily Beast:“Whenever the United States uses force in foreign territories, international legal principles, including respect for sovereignty and the law of armed conflict, impose important constraints on the ability of the United States to act unilaterally—and on the way in which the United States can use force. With respect to international law, the specific basis will depend on the particular facts and circumstances related to any specific military actions, but we believe that we will have a basis for taking action.”
 In Libya, Obama took great pains to have a UN resolution authorize his military action under the guise of protecting the lives of citizens. The actual aim was regime change. With Gadaffi's air force and defenses destroyed, bombing attacks were used to help rebels defeat Gadaffi's forces on the ground. In other interventions the policy has been to violate international law along with any allies willing to go along and then go to the UN to justify continued occupation as in Iraq and Afghanistan. For some of the violations in the Afghan invasion see this article.
Even former UN secretary general Kofi Annan explicitly said in September 2004 that the Iraq attacks on Hussein violated international law and the UN charter: Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter."
 In spite of these precedents, Ken Gude, of the Center for American Progress, a think tank close to the Obama administration that supports his anti-IS campaign says: “It’s important that the U.S. be seen as an adherent and supporter of international law and I’m concerned about the direction this is going. I’m disappointed in the level of supporting both domestic and international law in this military campaign. It’s important that the U.S. be seen as an adherent and supporter of international law and I’m concerned about the direction this is going". Rather than providing a justification as Gude suggests, US State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf said in response to Syrian claims that any US attacks without Syrian permission or a UN resolution would violate international law:"I find it interesting that Russia’s suddenly taken an interest in international law, given some of their past behavior. The President has the authority as Commander-in-Chief under the United States Constitution to take actions to protect our people. And any action we take overseas, of course, we will have an international legal basis for doing so. I don’t have predictions about what that is, given we haven’t announced additional actions yet.”
 This response, would seem to indicate that the administration may take the tack of claiming the action is required on the grounds that the Islamic State is an immediate threat to the United States in a place where the state involved, Syria, is unable or unwilling to take action. Of course Syria is taking action against the IS and has even said that it would sanction the military actions of the US against IS if they were coordinated with the Syrian government. The self-defense argument used in this case would stretch the meaning of "imminent threat" beyond reason so as to allow the application of the self-defense justification. If the US were willing to cooperate with the Assad government there would be no need to resort to self defense as a justification at all. John Kerry explicitly ruled out such cooperation: No, we're not going to coordinate with it, Syria. We will certainly want to deconflict to make certain that they're not about to do something that they might regret even more seriously. But we're not going to coordinate. It's not a cooperative effort. We are going to do what they haven't done, what they had plenty of opportunity to do, which is to take on ISIL and to degrade it and eliminate it as a threat.
 For some time the Islamic State or ISIS, at it was then, concentrated on taking territory held by other rebels and so there was not much confrontation between Assad and ISIS but that has changed for some time and Assad and ISIS are in constant battle with each other.
The US might try to invoke a right of "collective self defense" and claim that strikes inside Syria were meant to protect Iraq against the IS. Syria is not able to control its own territory and prevent attacks against Iraq by IS from Syria. Any such justification would limit attacks to defending Iraq and not destroying IS as is Obama's purported aim. The Obama administration could again stretch the legal limits by claiming that any punitive action against IS in Syria would be protecting Iraq. No doubt the Russians would find this defense interesting. Perhaps, they could argue that two self-declared pro-Russian Republics were unable to control their territory in the Ukraine, and hence to protect them they are going to bomb Ukrainian forces that are trying to take control of those territories. This is simply an application of the collective right to self defense. Ashley Deeks, a University of Virginia Law Professor, does not think that the collective self defense justification would be attractive to the Obama administration: “This theory would limit the scope of action of those helping the Iraqi government: those providing assistance only could do so to the extent necessary to quell ISIS in Iraq and ensure that ISIS was unable to conduct future attacks there. The approach also would be contingent on Iraq’s consent, which it could withdraw. As a political matter, it seems doubtful that the United States would find this to be an appealing approach, particularly if it perceives its own national interests to be at stake.”
Finally, Obama could claim that IS is part of the continuing war against al-Qaeda an application of the same type of justification used under domestic law to the international realm. Apart from the problems that IS is not part of Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11 it is not clear how this justification shows US actions comply with international law. The US can attempt to pass a UN Security Council resolution justifying use of force against the Islamic State in Syria. Russia would no doubt veto such a resolution.
A drone has already been seen over Aleppo in areas controlled by IS and also over Raqqa the main center in IS territory in Syria. Unless these drones are Syrian or have permission from the government to be there, they are violating Syrian air space. The US justification for action in Syria is long overdue. We know that the US carried out attacks in Syria some time ago as they attempted to rescue a US journalist held by IS in Syria. On the appended video, the new Iraqi prime minister claims that without the consent of the Assad government bombing attacks on the IS in Syria violate international law.

Obama claims he already has authorization for expanded attack on Islamic State

In his speech on September 10, Obama claimed he already had authorization for an expanded war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. However, he is also anxious that Congress provide him resources for his project.

Obama's request for funds include money to arm and train Syrian rebels, even though weapons provided to moderate rebels sometimes end up with the Islamic State. While there are members of Congress from both parties opposed to the war, they appear to be a definite minority at present. A recent poll showed that almost two thirds of Americans back attacking the Islamic State. According to the poll:Asked what type of military response was appropriate, some 40% of those polled said action against ISIS should be limited to airstrikes and an additional 34% were willing to use both airstrikes and commit U.S. ground troops—a remarkable mood swing for an electorate that just a year ago recoiled at Mr. Obama's proposal to launch airstrikes against Syria.
While Obama constantly suggests there will not be boots on the ground, there are already well over a thousand special forces and advisers. In time there will no doubt also be many contractors. Unlike the American public, except for Iran and Syria, Middle East countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan have been relatively subdued in their support for American actions. Syria was particularly anxious to cooperate with the US, but the US refuses to formally cooperate with Syria. Other countries are not that welcoming of the US return to Iraq: Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.
 The Obama administration claims that the 2001 AUMF law that authorized the US to use military force against Al Qaeda and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks also authorizes attacks upon the Islamic State. However, Al Qaeda has disowned the Islamic State and in Syria the Islamic State fights against the Nusra Front recognized by Al Qaeda. Even if the Islamic State was linked to Al Qaeda in the past, they had nothing to do with 9/11. There is not even any evidence of their mounting any attacks against the US. They beheaded two American journalists only after the US attacked them in Iraq. Robert Chesney from the University of Texas School of Law said: “On its face this is an implausible argument because the 2001 AUMF requires a nexus to al Qaeda or associated forces of al Qaeda fighting the United States. Since ISIS broke up with al Qaeda it’s hard to make that argument.”
  Many would argue that Obama should bring the issue of his expanded war to Congress to approve. In 2008 while campaigning for president Obama said: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Another law professor, Jack Goldsmith. from Harvard Law School said: “I think they are going to get more heat for this implausible interpretation of the 2001 AUMF than they realize,”
 Just in case plan A for justification becomes too risible there is also plan B announced by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry refuses to even say that the US is at war with the Islamic State or ISIS as they insist on calling it. Kerry notes that the administration's strategy--apparently they have one now--consists of "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war." Kerry told CNN: "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation. It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."
 For its part, Congress seems not anxious to vote on Obama's expansion of the war in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State.If there is a vote at all, it will probably be after the mid-term elections as California Democrat Adam Schiff told the Huffington Post: "At this point I will have to say it’s quite likely. That could change because there is definitely growing momentum behind the idea that Congress needs to vote on this, that the prior authorizations are insufficient. But I’m not sure that will be enough given the compressed time schedule."
Of course there is no discussion at all of whether the expansion of the war into Syria might involve breaking international law. The only pertinent question for American lawmakers it seems is whether it violates US laws.If the international law issue comes up the response seems to be that whenever the US feels threatened by any group anywhere in the world it can legitimately act in self defense.