Those who advocate armed intervention in Syria need to acknowledge it would be illegal, writes Matthew Stephen.
The editorial ''A Matter of Conscience'' (28.8.13) raises a fundamental question about the current civil war in Syria: What should the world do?
The conflict there has now not only killed 100,000 people and displaced a third of the Syrian population, but resulted in the probable use of chemical weapons by forces loyal to the Government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
What should the world do? The editorial rightly concludes: ''There may be no 'right' answer - and certainly no easy one.''
Russian and Chinese opposition has so far prevented the UN Security Council from taking forceful action. But American and other forces are now readying themselves for intervention, indicating that Security Council approval may not be necessary.
Many considerations should be taken into account when weighing up the options for an international intervention in the Syrian conflict: Will it prevent further atrocities? Will it dampen or inflame the conflict?
Will it deliver justice, or simply save face for those whose ''red lines'' have been crossed? There are no easy answers to any of these questions. But the answer to one question is very clear: will an intervention without Security Council approval be legal? The answer is no.
Even if it was proven beyond doubt that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons, intervention would not accord with international law.
Under international law, governments are generally free to do as they please within their own borders, unless they have agreed to limitations that are stipulated in international treaties and agreements (this is known as the Lotus principle).
Many states have renounced chemical weapons in the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, and by signing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
But Syria is not a signatory to any of these international agreements that forbid the use of chemical weapons.
Syria is a signatory to the Gas Protocol of the Geneva Conventions, but these apply strictly to interstate wars, not civil conflicts. Even if the Syrian Government did slaughter innocent people with chemical weapons, this would not make an intervention legal according to international law.
Sometimes reference is made to the ''Responsibility to Protect'' to legalise armed intervention.
This was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, and states that the international community may resort to force in order to prevent the four crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
But the Responsibility to Protect stipulates that force can only be used with the approval of the Security Council, which has so far been blocked by Russia and China.
The lesson to be drawn is not that intervention is illegitimate or morally wrong. Clearly, the regime of Bashar al-Assad will stop at nothing to retain power.
But those who advocate armed intervention need to acknowledge that even if such an intervention were prudent, it would be illegal.
Without Security Council approval, any Western intervention in the Syrian civil war will violate international law.
Matthew Stephen, from Dunedin and a University of Otago graduate, is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Berlin Social Research Centre.
