Introduction
The Syrian Civil War is the ongoing multisided conflict that started in 2011 as a result of severe repression of peaceful pro-democracy anti-government protests of Syrian citizens by the security forces of the Bashar al-Assad government. Recent death tolls estimate more than 190,000 victims, and the number of refugees hits the four million mark. The international community should take measures to protect the Syrian population and to stop the violation of human rights of Syrian citizens by applying the Responsibility to Protect norm that is based on three principles: all states of the international community should bear the “responsibility to protect”, “responsibility to react”, and “responsibility to rebuild”.
Responsibility to Protect
The Responsibility to Protect is a norm of international law that attempts to develop the methods to prevent mass atrocity crimes that are committed within the boundaries of states. This norm was initiated after the humanitarian tragedies that occurred in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo in the 1990s. When international society only began to speak of a right of humanitarian intervention, this norm was a matter of many disputes. The Charter of the United Nations, a treaty that was signed by 50 countries in 1945, prohibits the use of military force and guarantees a state’s right to be free from military intervention. However, one of the declared principles of the United Nations calls for the protection of human rights, and, sometimes, countries need to use military force to prevent mass human rights abuse. In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty proclaimed three principles of the Responsibility to Protect norm. First, the “responsibility to protect”: all states are responsible for protecting their population.
Second, the “responsibility to react”: if a state cannot protect its population, the responsibility for protection shifts to the international community. Third, the “responsibility to rebuild”: the international community should help the states to recover in the aftermath of a conflict (Williams et al. 482). The Responsibility to Protect norm is aimed to peacefully prevent the violation of human rights. This norm recognizes the importance of states’ sovereignty; however, it also suggests the framework that allows for the use of military force to protect states’ populations in case if the peaceful options have been exhausted. The first example that this norm can be successfully applied and used to justify the military intervention was in the case of the Libyan Civil War in 2011 (Holmes 143). In February of 2011, the Security Council passed Resolution 1970 demanding to stop the crimes that the government of Libya committed against its citizens. This resolution was an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. When it became clear that the Libyan government had no intention to stop its attacks, the Security Council sanctioned the use of military force to protect Libyan civilians. As a result, NATO military intervention disabled forces of the Libyan government, and the attacks against the Libyan population were stopped (Williams et al. 486).
Syrian Civil War
Syrian Civil War began with protests of civilians against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in January of 2011 and turned into the bloodiest conflict; however, at that time the international community did not expect that this conflict would escalate into the genuine civil war with international interventions. Political scientists stated that the decentralized quality of violence of the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad, incomplete militarization, and mobilization of the forces of opposition was not sufficient to characterize the conflict as a civil war (Bhardwaj 85). However, the fighting in Syria turned from the two-sided conflict to the multisided one. The army of opposition comprises numerous independent units that are grouped into larger entities based on ideology. The umbrella group for all these entities is the Free Syrian Army.
Apart from the Syrian government and the Free Syrian Army, other organizations are involved in the conflict representing the Islamic Front. They are also numerous and united based on an ideology that can be described as Salafist (a literal interpretation of the Quran). These groupings often refer to the help of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This part of the conflict is rather interested in establishing their control over Syrian eastern territory than in overthrowing Assad’s regime. The international community accused the Syrian government, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and other participants of the Syrian conflict of human rights abuse and mass atrocity crimes (Jenkins 11). As of April 2014, there were more than 190,000 documented conflict-related deaths in Syria that include pro-government forces, anti-government forces, and civilians. As of August 2015, the total number of Syrian refugees exceeded four million (Achiume 697).
Application of Responsibility to Protect Norm to Syrian Conflict
Five neighboring countries – Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt – hosted most Syrian refugees when the lawless actions of Assad’s government became utterly atrocious. These countries are compelled to share the cost of refugee protection without being the most responsible for causing the conflict that has led to the refugee crisis and without being the most capable to bear the main share of the cost. Syrian refugees need more than the host countries can give them. The most vital needs of refugees include shelter, water, food, and sanitation provisions. Despite the seriousness of the refugee crisis, the states can help the refugees if they cooperate to share the responsibility and cost of refugee protection. It is the “responsibility to rebuild” that is included in the three-principle Responsibility to Protect norm. Currently, the main platform for refugee protection is the Syria Regional Refugee Response Plan (RRP) that was developed by the host governments, UN agencies, non-governmental organizations, various foundations, and individuals. The RRP required US$4.5 billion to finance the refugees’ humanitarian aid, but only 20 percent of the sum was collected (Achiume 700). Besides the financial support, the UN Refugee Agency called the countries and states to host the refugees to relieve the demographic pressure that is exerted on the five Syria’s neighboring countries.
In 2015, more than 600,000 Syrians sought shelter in Europe. Few European states, most notably Germany, changed their asylum policy towards refugees, permitting them to seek shelter in their territories. However, it was not enough because the majority of European countries stated that they had limited sources to settle and protect Syrian refugees. The failure of the international community to bear the “responsibility to rebuild” may be explained by the reluctance to distribute the cost of refugee protection among the states. There is another responsibility within the framework of the Responsibility to Protect norm. The “responsibility to react” calls the Security Council for action in case if a state cannot protect its population or severely violates the human rights of its citizens (Williams et al. 487). If the Security Council fails to act, then the coalition of states should protect the population from atrocity crimes. However, the decision to intervene in the sovereignty of a state should be based on several conditions. First, the international community should establish a prima facie case before resorting to military intervention on the territory of a state.
In the case of the Syrian Civil War, there is a large number of evidence that the Syrian population suffered the lawless actions of Assad’s government. Second, peaceful options must be exhausted. The European Union, the United States, and the Arab League imposed a great number of sanctions on Syrian officials that were completely ignored. Third, the international community should make certain that the Security Council’s measures fail to stop the outrageous actions of a state’s government. Indeed, the Security Council failed to pass three resolutions authorizing peaceful options to stop the Syrian conflict because Russia and China vetoed these resolutions (Averre and Davies 830). Fourth, the use of military force should be limited to low intensity, for example, the states may consider the creation of a no-fly zone. Assad used the air power against the civilian population, and in this case, the creation of the no-fly zone could be a proportional military response to protect the Syrian population (Williams et al. 499).
Conclusion
The Syrian population suffers from military actions that continue on their territory. A large number of civilians died in shootings and mass killings, in mortar and rocket attacks, and Syrian government air attacks. Nearly half of a million people fled the country and neighboring regions saving their lives. The international community should apply the Responsibility to Protect norm to protect refugees and the Syrian population from the actions of the Syrian government as well as to help them recover from the atrocious consequences of the military actions.
Works Cited
Achiume, Tendayi. “Syria, Cost-Sharing and the Responsibility to Protect Refugees.” Minnesota Law Review 687 (2015): 687-761. Print.
Averre, Derek, and Lance Davies. “Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: the case of Syria.” International Affairs 91.4 (2015): 813-834. Print.
Bhardwaj, Maya. “Development of Conflict in Arab Spring Libya and Syria: From Revolution to Civil War.” Washington University International Review 1.1 (2012): 76-97. Print.
Holmes, John. “Responsibility to Protect.” Global Responsibility to Protect 6.2 (2014): 126-145. Print.
Jenkins, Brian Michael. The Dynamics of Syria’s Civil War. Web.
Williams, Paul R., et al. “Preventing Mass Atrocity Crimes: The Responsibility to Protect and the Syria Crisis.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 45.1 (2012): 472-503. Print.