One Year Later, America’s Airstrike on Syria Is Still Illegal

On April 6, 2017, the United States bombed a Syrian airbase. The bombing was in response to a chemical attack immediately thought to be ordered by the behest of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad just two days before.

This bombing was illegal. Even the U.S. government has since repeatedly failed to legally justify it.

With the war in Syria now in a new phase, understanding why is more important than ever. ISIS is all but wiped out. The U.S. mission in Syria has become an open-ended commitment involving, among other things, regime change. The U.S. military is increasingly threatening Syria and targeting its allies. In this new phase, grasping why last year’s bombing was illegal will be useful if President Trump plans a repeat.

First, the bombing was illegal under international law because it violated the U.N. Charter. As a signatory, the United States cannot violate Syria’s “territorial integrity or political independence” unless in self-defense, per Article 51, or without Security Council authorization, per Article 2(4). Neither held here.

To fit Article 51, the Pentagon might’ve cited “collective self-defense,” which it has used to justify occasional offensive strikes against Syrian forces near U.S. bases or allies. This isn’t patently absurd. (Only a little absurd: unlike the usual self-defense argument, this one involves the “victim” invading the “aggressor.”) Regardless, the rationale last April was not self-defense, but to “deter the regime from using chemical weapons again.”

At best, we’d have a humanitarian justification, which is not mentioned in the U.N. Charter. Humanitarian intervention is also not sufficiently established to be customary international law. And it’s undermined by ongoing U.S. military, resource, and rhetorical support for Saudi Arabia’s humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.

What of domestic U.S. legal bodies? The April strikes were also illegal under domestic law because the U.N. Charter is a U.S.-ratified treaty.

Our own constitution’s Article VI says such treaties are “supreme law of the land.” To override the treaty prohibition, Congress would have to pass a statute authorizing the attack.

Contrary to the administration’s rationale, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is such a statute, but doesn’t apply here because Syria is neither al Qaeda nor an “associated force.”

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) also couldn’t justify the strikes. The WPR gives the president power to initiate war without Congress only for defensive reasons (section 2(c)). And other sections unequivocally avoid “granting any authority to the President,” which “he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.”

To be sure, defenders have their strongest argument in the U.S. Constitution. But even there, the strikes were unconstitutional.

The Constitution only grants to the president the power as commander in chief to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Yet without an…

Read more