"Subsequent Approval" as a new Category? No legal Basis for the Strikes in Syria
The recent grave violaten once again occured at the hands of the United States of America, together with a dubious "coalition of the willing" in the form of air strikes against Syria. This is without doubt a breach of peace, un anlawful use of force and a violation of Syria's sovereignty. This time, President Obama has not even made an attempt to construe a justification for the violation under international law. Instead, it was declared afterwards that Syria had expressed "subsequent approval" of the attacks. While a number of justifications have been created outside of the actual scope of the UN Charter, such as the concept of "humanitarian interventions", "interventions on invitation" or "pre-emptive self-defence" - all of whom lack legal basis in the Charter and in the Customary international law - the concept of "subsequent approval" is unprecedented. In fact, the credibility of international law is increasingly shaking, with such opportunistic newly-created justification attempts being made by powerful nations. International law does not contain the concept of "subsequent approval" in order to justify unlawful use of force and intervention. Unless there is either a mandate of the Security Council, the clear and credible consent of the affected state or a reason to invoke the right to self-defence according to Article 51 UN Charter, the use of force remains illegal under international law. It is as simple as that.