So you’re saying that if some country were to start committing genocide or other crimes against humanity, it’s armed forces would be legally permitted to open fire on UN forces coming to stop their crimes?
In normal life, if I’m robbing a bank, I don’t have the legal right to open fire on the cops coming to stop me. That act counts as a separate crime.
Similarly, it would seem that if a country were committing genocide, their generals could be hauled before the Hague and prosecuted for defending their country from attack, even if those generals were not involved in the genocide in any way. The phrase “aiding and abetting genocide” comes to mind.
There is no specific part of the UN Charter or the international law of war that makes self defense illegal under certain conditions. So, in your example, the fact that a country was defending itself would not be illegitimate, but any actions it takes to further genocide would be.
For example, in 1990-1991, Iraq was subject to various UN resolutions. It was required to quit Kuwait, among other things. The UN authorized force to carry out those resolutions. There does not appear to be any cases of Iraqi officials being charged with illegal actions simply for the fact of carrying out legal military operations against a UN authorized force.
If Syria were to preemptively strike the United States, it would potentially have to answer to the entire NATO block. However, there may be some limits to this, as the United States has declared an intent to hold a military strike, thus potentially provoking Syria. I do not know if the NATO policy “An attack on one is an attack on all” applies in such a situation.
However, once the United States declares war, then it could fight back with whatever arms it could muster with relative legal impunity (massive retaliatory bombings being the most likely actual punishment).
Even if you are drafted into the ad-hoc army by your father’s say-so, even if you are a child soldier, even if the fighting takes place on a battlefield, even if it’s not clear you did the actual killing, the sore winner will still lock you up in Guantanamo from age 15 to age 26 and fight every effort to give you a fair “trial”.
So whether you are legally entitled to fight back or not, what international law says, etc. are entirely irrelevant. The winner gets to make the rules retroactively. Just like Nuremburg, but with less justice.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.*
I must be misreading that article, but it seems to state that if the security council says “Syria must be punished for using banned weapons, let the bombing commence”, if Syria does anything to resist they are violating international law.
It seems to say they must allow the cruise missiles to reach their targets, and even evacuating the government buildings could be seen as “resistance” in the same way that fighting the guards hauling a prisoner off to the death chamber is also assault and a crime.
No, you’re reading into things too much. The UN resolutions that have authorized force have done so in order to achieve a particular objective: for example, for Iraq to leave Kuwait, the invasion of Kuwait being a violation of international law. No UN resolution has made legitimate military actions against a UN authorized military mission a violation of law. In other words, no specific resolution has made self-defense illegal, even when “the UN” is attacking you for some other violation of law.
What’s more, I don’t believe there is a case that has ever been brought in which a country or individual has been charged with a war crime for simply fighting back against another military while acting within the laws of war. There have been ample cases, of course, of people facing war crimes charges for genocide, aggression, murder of civilians, etc.
As I said before: international law gives very great deference to a country acting in self-defense. What Article 51 means is that if you are attacked, simply acting in self-defense is fine, but the Security Council is still supposed to take action – in theory.
Well, Assad won’t be attacking mainland USA anytime soon but that doesn’t mean parties sympathetic to his ‘side’ won’t feel entitled to attack US interests. Which could be anything from kidnapping businessmen to bombing US-owned retailers, embassies, whatever.
Nothing’s for free right, including blowing up shit in another country.