Thread by @PatrickButchard

In Parliament today, there was a very evident rhetoric that any action through the UN regarding Syria would be blocked. So here's a thread on why the UN can do more - despite the veto - because there are some instances where the veto does not apply...

First, on investigations. The UN Security Council establishes these under Chapter VI of the Charter. Here, any member must abstain where they are a party to a dispute. Russia is such a party. Their veto shouldn't apply to investigations.

On military action (not saying it's a good idea). In the 1950s the Security Council was blocked - and the UNGA recommended further military measures in Korea during the war. Lots of debates as to whether thr General Assembly can authorise this - here's why it can:.

The General Assembly can make recommendations on peace and security measures under Arts 10 and 11 of the Charter. Usually can't do so 'while the Council is acting' (Art 12), but when blocked the Council isn't 'acting'. See ICJ case Certain Expenses among others ...

Some say recommendations can't make force legal because they're not binding, so can't disapply the prohibition of force in Art 2(4). I say - we must explain why the Security Council can 'authorise' action then ...

The only legal basis for Council 'authorisations' - legally non-binding - can be the Council's general power to make recommendations under Article 39. A Recommendation os arguably stronger - calling for action rather than simply permitting it, and authorisation would be implied.

Some say Art 42 provides this basis - but that only provides for the Council itself to take action directly, not to delegate it.

So if the SC can recommend force - why interpret the Assembly's power differently? Lots more legal debate to this but this is the gist. Also worth remembering that this ability was accepted by the UN in the early 1950s, when the problem of Council inaction came about.

So why has this never been fully utilised or used now with Syria? The Assembly is an unpredictable place. If powers went all in and bet on the Assebly to authorise the next step, any rejection could well indicate the complete inability of this system to act. But why not try?

Force isn't even the only option anyway. The Assebly could recommend non-forcible coercive countermeasures in the collective interest, which States are already doing. These measures can be so much stronger, more innovative, and much more effective.

Another UN option is the suspension or expulsion of Members. This has never been utilised (South Africa was suspended in practice but not formally). They require SC recommendation, but may not be subject to the veto - early GA discussions suggest this is a procedural vote.

Suspension would be better than expulsion because then Members are still subject to the rules and powers of the UN but can't vote. Would be a nuclear option to rid Russia of the veto but would also exclude them from diplomacy at the table, which may be counterproductive.

Peacekeeping is another possibility, even through the UNGA, but would require consent of Syria. This might happen if a mix of coercive non-forcible measures, plus a ceasefire agreement, were successful, but that's a big IF at the moment.

In pursuit of protecting civilians, the people unnecessarily dying for no good reason, would it not be better to unite the world - unite for peace - through the General Assembly, and let the failures of the Security Council be a lesson learned for reform?

In the end, to use a flimsy legal basis to undermine everything the UN and the Charter was designed to uphold, the myth of humanitarian intervention is not an option of last resort if the General Assembly route has not been tried first.

Disagree that this is legal or possible? I'd certainly say it was more plausible than a right to be an unaccountable vigilante. And at this point, with 400,000+ people dead, why not try? It would only either make the law or reject it. Not break it. #SyriaStrikes #Syria

All of the above has not been considered or addressed in the #SyriaStatement - has the General Assembly, and the illegality of humanitarian intervention - been forgotten, or just plainly ignored?