According to your report (Kerry: US will act against Assad, 27 August), "the UK and US have both signalled that they are prepared to act [against Syria] without a UN mandate. International law experts say intervention could be legally justified without a security council resolution under the UN's 'responsibility to protect'". According to another report, Douglas Alexander, Labour's shadow foreign secretary, "did not rule out Labour giving its backing to military intervention without a UN resolution".
But the 2005 World Summit outcome document in which the heads of state unanimously approved the new international norm of the "responsibility to protect", subsequently approved by UN security council resolution 1674, states that:
"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with chapters VI and VIII of the charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the security council, in accordance with the charter … on a case-by-case basis..." [my italics].
Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former US presidential special envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson, who co-chaired a working group on the responsibility to protect (R2P), stressed in the group's report that "R2P's implementation is to be done in accordance with the UN charter, which means that the central decision-making authority is the UN security council".
I wonder who are these "international law experts" who advise, absolutely wrongly, that military action against a sovereign state (other than in self-defence) without the authority of the security council can be justified under R2P? According to another report, "Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, warned that any attack on Syria without security council sanction would be 'a crude violation of international law'. He compared the situation to the run-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003". Lavrov was right on both counts.
Attorney-general Dominic Grieve should act immediately and above all publicly to nip in the bud this dangerous misconception that R2P allows any country to evade the plain requirements of international law as laid down in chapters VI and VII of the UN charter, before its constant repetition is wrongly assumed to legitimise another US-UK act of aggression like that committed against Iraq in 2003.
*Brian Barder*
London
• I am aghast that, just as the UN inspectors are visiting the sites of the alleged chemical weapons assault, the US, UK and France have already decided that such weapons were indeed used, and are readying to take unilateral military action. There are three reasons for my concern. The first one is that, coming 10 years after the invasion of Iraq despite the lack of evidence of the existence of WMDs, the west's current position will likely lead to future requests for access by weapons inspectors to be denied, since they will be deemed a ploy for subsequent military action regardless of their findings.
If an inspection carried out five days after a chemical attack is considered "too late", it is hard to imagine a situation where it could be launched more quickly, because but for the coincidental presence of the inspectors in Damascus, it would have taken a minimum of a week for them to be assembled in New York or Geneva.
Second, the doctrine of responsibilty to protect does not necessarily involve the use of armed force, which at any rate requires the security council's approval.
Finally, if, after the report of the inspection team was examined, western countries were still to conclude that Assad was responsible, and the security council were to be paralysed by the use of the veto by one or more of its permanent members, the legal course would be to invoke the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution in the course of the Korean war which authorises meeting in special session to make recommendations by a two-thirds majority to member states for collective measures, including "the use of armed force to maintain or restore international peace and security". This resolution was invoked on several occasions during the cold war, including to demand the withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces from Suez in 1956 and following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979-80. It has rarely been invoked of late, perhaps because of US concern that it could be used whenever it casts its veto on resolutions regarding Israeli actions in Palestine.
*Francesc Vendrell*
Former UN assistant secretary-general
• It is predictable that if we bombard Syria there will be casualties that will cause anger among Muslims worldwide. The result will be an increase in hostility to Britain and a consequent increase in the risk of terrorist attacks in this country. It is conceivable that there might be benefits in Syria that would justify this risk, but none has been adduced. Barack Obama made a foolish promise to do something if chemicals were used. To join him in trying to save his face by bombarding Syria is not in Britain's national interest.
*Robert Neild*
Cambridge
• Despite the past catastrophic costly interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, William Hague has repeatedly indicated that military intervention could be on the cards in Syria, which would no doubt be welcome news for the British arms industry. But let's not forget that foreign complicity in supplying arms to Syria has allowed Assad to inflict the current unspeakable inhumane barbarity on the Syrian people.
*Mabel Taylor*
Knutsford, Cheshire
• You report John Kerry as saying that chemical weapons are "the world's most heinous weapon". I don't wish to minimise the dreadfulness of what has been done in Syria, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the world's most heinous weapons are nuclear weapons, and that the US government remains prepared to use them if necessary.
*Richard Norman*
Canterbury, Kent
• The use of chemical weapons is deplorable. But the US has a long and dishonourable history of deploying such weapons. Between 1962 and 1971 the US used 12.1m gallons of Agent Orange and around 20 million gallons of other herbicides during the Vietnam war. The US has also used depleted uranium (DU) in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. A report published by a Dutch peace group earlier this year notes that there are still 300 sites in Iraq contaminated by DU, which will cost $30m to clean up. DU contamination has resulted in an increase in cancers and birth defects in the local population. So how credible is the US's reaction to Assad's use of chemical weapons?
*Sasha Simic*
London
• Why is money always found for wars abroad and not enough found to care for our own people? How can we ever think of gathering resources for another little-understood conflict, when so many Britons are hungry, our healthcare is threatened and our education system is being trashed? Please let's stop parading on the world stage like wound-up tin soldiers who don't know when or how to stop.
*Olivia Byard*
Witney, Oxfordshire Reported by guardian.co.uk 5 days ago.
But the 2005 World Summit outcome document in which the heads of state unanimously approved the new international norm of the "responsibility to protect", subsequently approved by UN security council resolution 1674, states that:
"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with chapters VI and VIII of the charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the security council, in accordance with the charter … on a case-by-case basis..." [my italics].
Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former US presidential special envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson, who co-chaired a working group on the responsibility to protect (R2P), stressed in the group's report that "R2P's implementation is to be done in accordance with the UN charter, which means that the central decision-making authority is the UN security council".
I wonder who are these "international law experts" who advise, absolutely wrongly, that military action against a sovereign state (other than in self-defence) without the authority of the security council can be justified under R2P? According to another report, "Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, warned that any attack on Syria without security council sanction would be 'a crude violation of international law'. He compared the situation to the run-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003". Lavrov was right on both counts.
Attorney-general Dominic Grieve should act immediately and above all publicly to nip in the bud this dangerous misconception that R2P allows any country to evade the plain requirements of international law as laid down in chapters VI and VII of the UN charter, before its constant repetition is wrongly assumed to legitimise another US-UK act of aggression like that committed against Iraq in 2003.
*Brian Barder*
London
• I am aghast that, just as the UN inspectors are visiting the sites of the alleged chemical weapons assault, the US, UK and France have already decided that such weapons were indeed used, and are readying to take unilateral military action. There are three reasons for my concern. The first one is that, coming 10 years after the invasion of Iraq despite the lack of evidence of the existence of WMDs, the west's current position will likely lead to future requests for access by weapons inspectors to be denied, since they will be deemed a ploy for subsequent military action regardless of their findings.
If an inspection carried out five days after a chemical attack is considered "too late", it is hard to imagine a situation where it could be launched more quickly, because but for the coincidental presence of the inspectors in Damascus, it would have taken a minimum of a week for them to be assembled in New York or Geneva.
Second, the doctrine of responsibilty to protect does not necessarily involve the use of armed force, which at any rate requires the security council's approval.
Finally, if, after the report of the inspection team was examined, western countries were still to conclude that Assad was responsible, and the security council were to be paralysed by the use of the veto by one or more of its permanent members, the legal course would be to invoke the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution in the course of the Korean war which authorises meeting in special session to make recommendations by a two-thirds majority to member states for collective measures, including "the use of armed force to maintain or restore international peace and security". This resolution was invoked on several occasions during the cold war, including to demand the withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces from Suez in 1956 and following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979-80. It has rarely been invoked of late, perhaps because of US concern that it could be used whenever it casts its veto on resolutions regarding Israeli actions in Palestine.
*Francesc Vendrell*
Former UN assistant secretary-general
• It is predictable that if we bombard Syria there will be casualties that will cause anger among Muslims worldwide. The result will be an increase in hostility to Britain and a consequent increase in the risk of terrorist attacks in this country. It is conceivable that there might be benefits in Syria that would justify this risk, but none has been adduced. Barack Obama made a foolish promise to do something if chemicals were used. To join him in trying to save his face by bombarding Syria is not in Britain's national interest.
*Robert Neild*
Cambridge
• Despite the past catastrophic costly interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, William Hague has repeatedly indicated that military intervention could be on the cards in Syria, which would no doubt be welcome news for the British arms industry. But let's not forget that foreign complicity in supplying arms to Syria has allowed Assad to inflict the current unspeakable inhumane barbarity on the Syrian people.
*Mabel Taylor*
Knutsford, Cheshire
• You report John Kerry as saying that chemical weapons are "the world's most heinous weapon". I don't wish to minimise the dreadfulness of what has been done in Syria, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the world's most heinous weapons are nuclear weapons, and that the US government remains prepared to use them if necessary.
*Richard Norman*
Canterbury, Kent
• The use of chemical weapons is deplorable. But the US has a long and dishonourable history of deploying such weapons. Between 1962 and 1971 the US used 12.1m gallons of Agent Orange and around 20 million gallons of other herbicides during the Vietnam war. The US has also used depleted uranium (DU) in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. A report published by a Dutch peace group earlier this year notes that there are still 300 sites in Iraq contaminated by DU, which will cost $30m to clean up. DU contamination has resulted in an increase in cancers and birth defects in the local population. So how credible is the US's reaction to Assad's use of chemical weapons?
*Sasha Simic*
London
• Why is money always found for wars abroad and not enough found to care for our own people? How can we ever think of gathering resources for another little-understood conflict, when so many Britons are hungry, our healthcare is threatened and our education system is being trashed? Please let's stop parading on the world stage like wound-up tin soldiers who don't know when or how to stop.
*Olivia Byard*
Witney, Oxfordshire Reported by guardian.co.uk 5 days ago.