Sovereignty: Can the international community violate Syrian sovereignty?

Resources will be posted here that will inform participants on the issues of sovereignty as applied to the contemporary Syrian situation.

All material so posted is the opinion or position of the creators of that material and does not necessarily reflect the position of this blogger, the debate participants, or related institutions.


The Charter of the United Nations
This is the starting point document.  Read the preamble.  It sets out the purpose and direction of the UNO.
Chapter I, Article 2 clearly sets out the strength of sovereignty, and of its inviolability.  Clause 7 is worthy of special note for use during the debate.  Clause 7 also mentions "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.", which means we have to know what Chapter VII might say about the inviolability of sovereignty.

Several simple resources here help to explain the history and nature of sovereignty.

Sovereignty: Supreme Power & Authority


SECURITY COUNCIL: VETOSs ON SYRIAN INTERVENTION The United Nations Security Council has debated several resolutions about taking action in Syria. I has not mattered what the object of the resolutions was - humanitarian intervention, disarming chemical weapons, sending in troops, or a condemnation of the regime - all resolutions have been defeated by veto. Why? Those exercising the veto 'NO' vote effectively killed these resolutions. Their reasoning is about the important principle of sovereignty. If sovereignty of Syria is violated in this case, whatever the reason, it sets a president that makes it easier next time to again violate the sovereignty of another state. China and Russia are voting 'no' on these resolutions. They have serious concerns about the erosion of sovereignty - every State's right to conduct its own internal affairs in the way it sees fit, free from outside interference. China and Russia point to what happened in Libya. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) authorized the use of military intervention (with no soldiers to be deployed into Libya), in order to protect civilians from attacks by government forces. This was an exercise in the new principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which will be explained in the next post. China and Russia decided to let this experiment in R2P go forward. They did not use their veto to vote 'no'. Instead they abstained, reserving judgement until they saw the consequences of the Resolution in action. The consequences? With the SC Resolution authorization NATO forces began to attack Libyan government forces that were attacking civilians in Benghazi. Benghazi is over 900 kilometers from the capital city of Tripoli. As days progressed the NATO forces evolved increasingly from defending civilians in Benghazi to supporting rebel fighters as they pressed their attacks against government forces. Very shortly the NATO mission seemed to morph from just defending civilians in Benghazi, to directly supporting the fight to topple the government, with NATO attacking military and government targets in Tripoli. By destroying government armor, aircraft, communications and infrastructure NATO directly assisted in the overthrow of Muammar al-Gaddafi and his government. Gaddafi was soon after found and killed. China and Russia argue that that outcome was an abuse of the Security Council Resolution, and of the principle of R2P. They felt tricked into allowing this resolution to pass in the SC. They will not let themselves be tricked again. When it comes not to Syria, China and Russia do agree that terrible things are happening. However, they strongly believe that absolute sovereignty is a principle too important to allow any more R2P-type resolutions to erode. Watch these clips related to the Syria and Libya cases.