No its not. The Assad government is the legal recognised government of Syria by the UN and the international community. They are entitled to invite help from foreign militaries.
I don’t agree with what Assad does but to claim Russia has no right to be there is to be entirely ignorant of international law.
That’s not the argument: the argument is that because the Russians have been invited they are the only ones entitled to be there. Of course, in point of fact Syria is in the throes of a civil war and has no real government, and the UN has authorized intervention anyway.
Please quote the UN resolution numbers that authorise action by the US and the EU community against Syria. As far as I am aware they have condemned Syria for suspected chemical weapons usage but they have not authorised military action.
The argument that they are in a civil war so anyone can intervene has no basis in International law.
No you were responding to “at least Russia has the Syrian government’s permission”. Your response of "*a *government " was hogwash. A group of rebels that the U.S. has decided to back cannot reasonably be considered another possible government.
Could you link me to the currently active UN authorization of intervention in Syria? I am having trouble finding it.
Oh yeah that. I guess I was conflating your statements in my head and looking for something that also de-legitimized the Syrian government because there was a civil war.
The UN does not generally take a position on that sort of thing but it’s fairly well established that military intervention for humanitarian or self-defense purposes (both of which the NATO forces are claiming as their purposes) in failed states are permissible.
Contrast that to the US invasion of Iraq (the second time), where there was no doubt about the authority of the Hussein government or its control over its territory (other than the de facto Kurdish state).
Section 5 calls upon member states to “do all that they can within international law” to stop terrorists acts by ISIS / Daesh. International law experts dispute that this authorises the use of military force against Syria:
This is in clear contrast to Syria’s request for Russia to provide military aid which is clearly legal under international law.
Since when do you need the UN’s approval to fight a war?
Since never but RNATB is saying that the U.N. does approve it.
That’s a rather thin argument, since the experts who dispute the resolution’s effect all seem to agree that if the resolution does not authorize the use of force it implicitly recognizes that states already using force in Syria are already permitted to do so.
You don’t clearly since the US has been doing whatever it wants the last 20-30 years. But going by International law Russia has the right to be in Syria because its been invited by the recognised government of Syria. If US and EU has the right to bomb Syria is questionable according to international law.
You might be right but I’ve seen various US pundits claim “Russia has no right to be in Syria”. The point I’m trying to make is that according to International Law Russia has just as much if not more right to be involved in the Syria conflict. Anyone claiming thats not the case is clearly just a USA number 1 rah rah rah tribalist.
The UN Charter specifically allows states to engage in collective self-defense against threats against them. The Russians are in Syria because the Syrian government asked them to – that’s totally legit.
The U.S. and other countries have responded to Iraqi requests for help to defend their country against ISIL, an international threat emanating from across the border. Iraq does not need permission to defend itself from ISIL in Syria – that is clearly an act of self-defense. And per the U.N. Charter, Iraq can invite whomever it wants to help them in their self-defense efforts.
The U.S. has the full right to attack ISIL in Syria. We do not, however, have a basis in international law to, say, start bombing Assad’s army, which isn’t threatening Iraq, Turkey, or any other country.
ETA: That doesn’t mean that Russia isn’t on the wrong side of the issue by defending Assad.