28 No. 57 JUSTICE this multiplication: A devil’s advocate might even go as far as to think that if France has been invoking all these different legal arguments that may be down to a concern that none of them is capable by itself of providing sufficient justification for the intervention – but that the combination of all three might!53 It is interesting to note that many states decided to send letters to the UN in order to justify their actions, thereby fulfilling the requirements for notification under Article 51 of the Charter. This is a welcome move, "as compliance with international law is in the interest of long-term peace and security … and on the rule of law."54 But political announcements and justifications do not amount to legality. Yet, in practice, challenges and criticism have mainly come from scholars and experts, or through government statements: in practice, "the rare States who expressed their opposition to this intervention did not challenge its legality."55 In fact, despite criticism addressed against airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, there are yet to be actual challenges against specific states, such as through case law before courts, or demands for UN sanctions. Benvenisti notes that "put bluntly, absent Security Council condemnations, forceful action will not be deemed illegal."56 On the other hand, Resolution 2249, while it "might confer a degree of legitimacy on actions against" ISIS, does not provide a legal basis for the use of force against the group,57 even though states are using it as a justification for the airstrikes.58 States may be trying to avoid setting precedents by legally challenging other states, in case they need to use a similar legal argument in the future. It is therefore interesting to see Russia stating that the coalition violates international law59 while the international coalition disputes the legality of Russian strikes; and finally that Russia and other states are now discussing agreements on airstrikes against ISIS, while still disagreeing on the role of Assad.60 The complexity of the situation on the ground, the various domestic interests,61 and the lack of legal clarity of the response are symptomatic of the increasing confusion over legal categories, which seems to define international law today.62 The international coalition against ISIS raises similar questions. This is due, in part, to the difficult geo-political scene. But there is also a confusion of various discourses, which is reflected in the lack of clear legal basis for the interventions. There are two reasons for acting against ISIS which have an impact on the nature of the reaction to it: one is because it brings to an area of the globe horrors that seem to be expanding and that could potentially form the legal basis for humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. The humanitarian aid represents a response to this concern, but it has not led to a military response in Syria. The other reason for acting against ISIS 29. Turkey carries out first ever strikes against ISIS in Syria, THE GUARDIAN, July 24, 2015, available at www.theguardian. com/world/2015/jul/24/turkish-jets-carry-out-strikesagainst-isis-in-syria-reports (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 30. Frappes aériennes française en Syrie, Official statement by the Elysée (in French), September 27, 2015 available at www.elysee.fr/communiques-de-presse/article/frappesaeriennes-francaises-en-syrie/ (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 31. Russia admits targeting non-Isis groups in Syria as airstrikes continue, THE GUARDIAN, Oct. 1, 2015, available at www. theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/russia-targetingnon-isis-groups-syria-airstrikes (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). For Laura Visser, this is sufficient to establish the legality of Russian airstrikes in Syria under international law, see Russia’s Intervention in Syria, EJIL: Talk, Nov. 25, 2015, available at www.ejiltalk.org/russias-intervention-in-syria/. 32. Lawmakers authorize use of Russian military force for anti-IS airstrikes in Syria, TASS, Sept. 30, 2015, available at tass.ru/en/politics/824795 (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 33. See (in French) Olivier Corten: l'intervention militaire remplace le règlement politique, Sept. 25, 2014, available at www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_la-culture-de-li n t e r v e n t i o n - s e - s u b s t i t u e - a - un - r e g l eme n t - politique?id=8363483 (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 34. The legal basis for the war against Isis remains contentious, THE GUARDIAN, Oct. 6, 2014, available at www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/legal-basis-war-isissyria-islamic-state (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 35. U.S. Department of State, Press Briefing, Aug. 25, 2014, transcript available at www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ dpb/2014/08/230859.htm (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 36. The Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations letter dated Sept. 23, 2014 to the SecretaryGeneral, available at www.scribd.com/doc/240738195/ Ambassador-Power-Letter-to-UNSC (last visited Nov. 16, 2015). 37. U.N. President of the S.C., Letter dated Sept. 7, 2015 from the Permanent Rep. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2015/688 (Sept. 7, 2015) available at www.un.org/en/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/688 (last visited Nov. 16, 2015).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=