Can international law save the Syrian people?

Thousands of lives and three years too late, world leaders came together to “Save Syria”, as the United Nations (UN) and Arab League’s special envoy on Syria Lakhdar Brahimisaid. But, unsuccessfully. Can international law save the Syrian people? Are there provisions in the international legal system to address the concerns of those suffering with no recourse from their own governments? The answer to both questions is yes.

The humanitarian response

International humanitarian law was put to paper for this very reason—to ameliorate the scourge of war. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are foundational to international humanitarian law. These conventions, signed by 194 states including Syria, cover international conflict—meaning war between states. They do not dictate if countries can go to war but how a war should be fought. The conventions detail ways and means of helping and protecting the war wounded, prisoners of war, the sick and civilians. This first step towards putting people at the centre of international relations was taken as far back as 1864 with the original Geneva Convention for “amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field”. This was the brainchild of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and its founder Henry Dunant. ICRC remains the guardian of the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law. It is government neutral, owing allegiance to no government.

So too in the case of Syria, ICRC has been providing humanitarian assistance, even in most critical areas such as the city of Homs. At the Second Humanitarian Pledging Conference held in Kuwait in January, ICRC president Peter Maureremphasised the need to do more. The short-lived humanitarian corridor to Homs—Geneva II’s only success—was the answer to Maurer’s prayer. But international humanitarian law and the authority it bestows on ICRC, however strong, only go so far. This is where we cross over into the contentious zone of international human rights law.

Saving the Syrian exodus

The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees lays the legal foundation to defining a refugee, their rights and the obligation of states to refugees. According to the UNHCR—the principal UN agency for refugees—over two million Syrians have been forced to flee their country since the conflict began in 2011. UNHCR has called it the largest exodus in recent history. States that have signed and ratified the Refugee Convention are obligated to help the Syrian refugees especially if they have somehow landed in respective states. India is not a party to the Refugee Convention. But India has been open to refugees irrespective of its international stand. However the same cannot be said of countries such as the UK or Australia—both signatories. It was only recently after much cajoling, and mostly a Labour debate on the matter, that UK’s conservative coalition agreed to resettle some Syrian refugees.

The UNHCR claims that 80% of the world’s refugees are in developing countries. With one of the worst human tragedies unfolding in Syria, it is time to reinforce the international community’s obligation by extending support to Syrian refugees.

International justice for the Syrian people?

What is the purpose of international law if not to serve international justice for the people it protects. This is the mandate of the International Criminal Court (ICC) created in 1998 as a treaty body effective from 2002. Its mandate covers only the four crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and war of aggression, the last of which is yet to be defined. But one of the unending and ongoing debates in international law is that of justice vs. peace. It will remain the fate of the people of Syria as well—it will be either justice or peace, probably neither but not both.

In December 2013, the UN implicated Bashar al Assad for war crimes in Syria. A UN Commission of Inquiry found evidence for the authorization of war crimes at the highest level. In Assad’s case, if there is ever one, intent would be easy to prove. But, firstly arresting the perpetrator once a warrant is issued is not easy. The Syrian administration or other states party to the Rome Statute that governs the ICC should be willing to arrest and hand over Assad to the ICC. Secondly, though not an agency of the UN, the UN Security Council (UNSC) can stay an investigation of the Court under article 16 of the Statute. All this is done in the “interests of justice”, which is the third point. This get-out-of-jail card is tucked away in Article 53. The implication is that peace is in the interest of justice and where the latter can compromise the former, especially in ongoing conflicts or peace processes, such as the Geneva II talks on Syria.

Limits of international law

International law is created by the international community of states; then, adopted by the very same states. They are self-imposed obligations with as much binding force as a safety pin. The lack of an overarching enforcing authority is clear. The UN is not that authority. Yet again, it is an organization constituted by the very same community of states. Its authority is only as much as the states—especially the five UNSC permanent members—deem it to have. This is not to label international law, pertaining to humanitarianism and human rights, useless. But that it is nascent; has immense potential and has shown the occasional tooth. The international community has only to reinforce its own obligations and enforce its responsibility to protect and save Syria.