Russia’s use of force in Syria in light of the rules of international law

Abstract

Russia's justifications for its use of force in Syria, although looking at it at first sight seems logical and complies with the rules of public international law, especially the Charter of the United Nations, but research and analysis of them with comparison with what happened and is happening on Syrian territory confirms that these justifications are incompatible with what is stipulated in the rules of international law, the existence of the international treaty or the request of the Syrian government to intervene to help it does not mean that the use of Force by it is in accordance with international law, because this use is against the Syrian people and not against a country that used force against Syria, in addition to that this use of force is not only against terrorist groups, but also against the Syrian people, who demanded their legitimate rights through a large-scale popular movement in terms of geographical area or the number of participants in it, and that terrorism was only an argument to justify the use of force and intervention and not to commit to fighting terrorism as stipulated in international resolutions. The solution is to refer to the rules of international law, especially the Charter of the United Nations, and to abide by what is stipulated in Article (2/paragraph 4) and Article (51) of the Charter, and also to abide by the resolutions issued by the Security Council against terrorism and not to expand their concepts as they violate the foundations of international law and will bring humanity the scourge of war again.