Gabriel Helou

“ The amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression were adopted by consensus at the Kampala Review Conference in June 2010. The British and French were part of that consensus. The definition of the crime of aggression is as follows ”

“ Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron lost a symbolic vote on military action in Syria by 285 votes to 272. Cameron pledged not to override the parliament's decision .”

"When the president reaches a determination about the appropriate response ... and a legal justification is required to substantiate or to back up that decision, we'll produce one on our  own ." So basically the US will invent new “legal rules” to justify illegal action.

I urge everyone not to use the word "strike" for any possible Western action against Syria. Emphasis should be on a crime of aggression.

It is rather astonishing that some authors refer to Article 52 of the UN Charter - dealing with Regional Arrangements - as a “legal basis” for carrying out military action against Syria, without Security Council authorization. By invoking Article 52, they point out to the Arab League and NATO, as regional organizations. Now it is true that the aforementioned Article acknowledges the right to establish regional organizations or agencies, as well as their role in the maintenance of international peace and security, which includes taking “appropriate action” to this effect. However, those authors seem to read or interpret Article 52 as a “green light” or as a plain authorization for regional organizations - like NATO - to act, even militarily, to maintain international peace and security. I wish that those who invoke Article 52 would care to read the Article that follows. Article 53(1) of the Charter clearly and expressly states: “… no enforcement action shall be taken unde...