snake Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 No. Self-defence doesen't require anyone's approval. Could this be deemed as self-defence do ya think? Case could be made for Iraq I suppose but I still don't see how this would allow other states to bomb Syria without UN SC approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted September 23, 2014 Author Share Posted September 23, 2014 Oh yeah, and Israel shot down a SAA fighter jet, as if this wasn't already a sprawling mess of a conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Could this be deemed as self-defence do ya think? Case could be made for Iraq I suppose but I still don't see how this would allow other states to bomb Syria without UN SC approval. They're free to join in (if Iraq lets them) Iraq can decide what it wants done on it's sovereign territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 They're free to join in (if Iraq lets them) Iraq can decide what it wants done on it's sovereign territory. But what of Syrian territory? I'm not well versed in international law, that would be sologdin I think, but could Iraq request strikes on Syrian soil from other nations without SC approval? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted September 23, 2014 Author Share Posted September 23, 2014 Some very rich ironies in this great FT article on Isis' oilfields and the smuggling networks they plug into, well worth free registration.The networks came about because of the 90s sanctions regime, and Kurdish refineries may well be processing oil sold on from Isis wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 But what of Syrian territory? I'm not well versed in international law, that would be sologdin I think, but could Iraq request strikes on Syrian soil from other nations without SC approval? Well, that depends on what the Syrian government thinks. Iraq is at war with ISIS, and can thus presumably strike at ISIS targets due to the self-defence clause, and that presumably includes the allies of the iraqi government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Well, that depends on what the Syrian government thinks. Iraq is at war with ISIS, and can thus presumably strike at ISIS targets due to the self-defence clause, and that presumably includes the allies of the iraqi government.From what I have read the Syrian government has not approved air strikes in Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 From what I have read the Syrian government has not approved air strikes in Syria. In that case they're either incapable of excercising sovereign power over their territory (likely) or is deliberately aiding and abetting an attack on iraqi territory (unlikely). In either case self-defence works. (letting someone else use your territory for attacks on a third party gives that party the right to retaliate against you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 In that case they're either incapable of excercising sovereign power over their territory (likely) or is deliberately aiding and abetting an attack on iraqi territory (unlikely). In either case self-defence works. (letting someone else use your territory for attacks on a third party gives that party the right to retaliate against you) I think it sets a bad precedent as does having another coalition of the willing, or I should say not so willing but it is what it is. I don't see how it will accomplish much without boots on the ground though and right now I wonder who will be supplying the boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think it sets a bad precedent as does having another coalition of the willing, or I should say not so willing but it is what it is. I don't see how it will accomplish much without boots on the ground though and right now I wonder who will be supplying the boots. Except this is nothing like the coalition of the piddling. For exactly the reasons I and Galactus have stated a few times now. National sovereignty is not a shield for letting a 3rd party attack your neighbours at will from your own territory. For very obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghjhero Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 This entire conversation is pointless because it seems that Assad approves of the airstrikes on ISIS. https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-condemns-u-airstrikes-isis-al-qaeda-assad-113157006.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Barbarians Within Our Gates: Arab Civilization has collapsed. It won't recover in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 From what I have read the Syrian government has not approved air strikes in Syria. If the Syrian Government had been worried it would have protested against the breach of their sovereign territory, instead they have made some non-committal comments about supporting the fight against terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 If the Syrian Government had been worried it would have protested against the breach of their sovereign territory, instead they have made some non-committal comments about supporting the fight against terrorism. As Ghjhero has already posted and it has also been reported by the BBC, Syria supports the air strikes. So my questions regarding Syrias sovereignty are answered. Interesting to note that Kerry stated borders didn't matter when it came to the US pursuing terrorists. Dangerous precedents are being set her IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 As Ghjhero has already posted and it has also been reported by the BBC, Syria supports the air strikes. So my questions regarding Syrias sovereignty are answered. Interesting to note that Kerry stated borders didn't matter when it came to the US pursuing terrorists. Dangerous precedents are being set her IMO. They aren't precedents, as was explained to you already. If you can't keep people in your country from attacking your neighbours, you are already surrendering some level of territorial sovereignty anyway. And certainly justifying outside intrusion into your territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 As Ghjhero has already posted and it has also been reported by the BBC, Syria supports the air strikes. So my questions regarding Syrias sovereignty are answered. Interesting to note that Kerry stated borders didn't matter when it came to the US pursuing terrorists. Dangerous precedents are being set her IMO. Precedents? Tell that to Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Precedents? Tell that to Pakistan. And Yemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Yemen is different as those are with the approval of the Yemeni government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted September 24, 2014 Author Share Posted September 24, 2014 As is also the case with Pakistan. EDIT: by contrast, I suspect the Syrian regime's 'approval' isn't anything more than putting a brave face on a fait accompli (English language best language) -- I note none of its allies seem to have gotten the 'no guys its fine, they cleared it with us' memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 As is also the case with Pakistan. EDIT: by contrast, I suspect the Syrian regime's 'approval' isn't anything more than putting a brave face on a fait accompli (English language best language) -- I note none of its allies seem to have gotten the 'no guys its fine, they cleared it with us' memo.I would say you are right. They are too weak to do anything about it and they have been warned about attempting anything. I guess their hope is that once the coalition of the willing are done with IS they won't turn their attention to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.