The Responsibility to Protect and Obama’s Red Line on Syria
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12960708 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Yasmine Nahlawi (0000-0003-4329-1170, Newcastle University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 76-101 |
| Publication date | 2016-02-29 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Global Responsibility to Protect (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1875-984X • E-ISSN: 1875-9858 |
| Publisher | Brill (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1163/1875984x-00801005 |
| OpenAlex | W2331114851 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 3 |
The 21 August 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta led to the mobilisation of the international community after long international paralysis towards the ongoing conflict in Syria. It is unclear, however, why or under what legal basis states chose to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in exclusion to other mass atrocity crimes committed within the country. This article evaluates the legal underpinnings of President Obama’s ‘red line’ on the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the context of R2P. It notes that while all states condemned the Ghouta attack and called for accountability in this regard, only a minority of states shared the United States’ position that chemical weapons constituted a red line in their own right. Overall, it is maintained that the ‘red line’ phenomenon was case-specific to the Syrian conflict, reflecting geopolitical interests of world powers rather than signifying a new precedent for R2P’s application
Accountability · Chemical warfare · Context (archaeology · Geopolitics · International community · International law · Phenomenon · Political science · Politics · Responsibility to Protect · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · History · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2023 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |