The Civil War in Syria and the International Response

Authors

  • Luljeta Kodra

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26417/ejser.v5i1.p281-290

Keywords:

massive crimes, responsibility to protect, the right of veto, the principle of nonintervention, Security Council.

Abstract

Both parties involved in the civil war in Syria, reached to secure the support of other states and the control over considerable parts of the territory, but none of them could trigger a comprehensive military defeat against the other. The cost of the conflict where government forces as well as armed rebels continue to commit atroccities has been shocking. Security Council with regard to the problem of Syria was divided between a majority who wanted a strong response to implement the Responsibility to Protect and some who did not want. The debate between Western democracies was based on the fact if foreign governments should militarily intervene in Syria, being that they thought military intervention could aggravate the conflict and could increase the sufferings of ordinary Syrians. However individual countries and regional organizations took actions to maintain their responsibility to protect. The use of the veto by the permanent members of the Security Council to prevent the implementation of the "Responsibility to Protect " which aims to end the massive atrocities is inconsistent with the goals of the United Nations and makes the Security Council inappropriate on the situation when his involvement to resolve conflict situations is an urgent need. State sovereignty can no longer constitute an unrestricted license to mass killings and other atrocity crimes.

Downloads

Published

2015-12-30