DOI: 10.36347/sjebm.2020.v07i09.004

Pages: 304-312

Early in the Syrian conflict, US President Barack Obama drew a “red line” for the Syrian government on the issue of chemical weapons. The “red line” implies a new norm for the prohibition of chemical weapons: If a government uses chemical weapons against its civilians, other countries can strike it with force. After reports of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the Obama administration’s attempt to implement the “red line” shows that “strike by force” in its proposed norm can be carried out without authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Although the smooth implementation of the “chemical weapons for peace” plan put forward by Russia had avoided the implementation of the “red line” by the United States, it showed that Russia had in action acquiesced in the new norm of banning chemical weapons. From February 2017 to April 2018, Russia and other countries vetoed six draft resolutions submitted to the UN Security Council by the US, Britain, France and other countries related to the investigation of the new chemical attacks in Syria. However, despite the opposition of Russia and other countries, the United States, Britain and France insisted that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians and launched two missile attacks against it. The attack carried out the new norm and further clarified the scale of “military strikes” in the new norm. With regard to the proposed new norm, China and Russia still insist that military strikes need to be authorized by the UN Security Council, and oppose the use of false evidence to abuse the new norm. The new international norm of chemical prohibitions proposed by the United States, Britain, France and other countries are essentially a new development of the theory of humanitarian intervention. The game between the great powers around the chemical weapons attacks in Syria embodies the international normative question of “which is more important, sovereignty or human rights”.