DOI: https://doi.org/10.36347/sjahss.2026.v14i06.004

Pages: 235-244

In the Syrian conflict, the United States launched military strikes against non-state actors and maintained a long term military presence without authorization from the UN Security Council or consent from the Syrian government, thereby facing serious challenges to the legality of its actions under international law. To address this dilemma, the United States was compelled to update its discourse system for “extraterritorial use of force against non state actors.” This paper examines the motivations and pathways of U.S. discourse adaptation in the Syrian conflict. The study finds that prior to the Syrian conflict, the United States had already constructed a preliminary legal justification framework by expanding the scope of self defense to cover non state actors, introducing the “unwilling or unable” standard, and advancing the “hot pursuit” discourse. However, as ISIS was defeated and the Syrian government regained territorial control, the original discourse could neither justify the continued U.S. military presence nor provide a legal basis for strikes against pro regime forces. In response, the United States updated its discourse system through three pathways: first, setting the “complete defeat of non state actors” as the condition for ending collective self defense; second, expanding the objects of collective self defense from states to non state armed partners; and third, adopting a broad interpretation of the “imminence” requirement for self defense, arguing that once self defense is lawfully initiated, subsequent actions do not require reassessment of imminence. These adaptations have enabled the United States to sustain a legal narrative for its military operations in Syria in the absence of traditional legal authorization, yet their legitimacy and validity remain highly contested.