It seems the military operation will commence later this week without a UN mandate. However the loosely relevant R2P (Responsibility to Protect) law is the one the US and our government seem to be basing the argument for interfering.
"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with chapters VI and VIII of the charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the security council, in accordance with the charter … on a case-by-case basis..."
Now in this instance I am fairly sure the Assad regime were behind the chemical attack, and specific missiles could well prevent further catastrophes. But I believe currently there are 22 Wars taking place around the World, surely the R2P law would be relevant for a hell of a lot more genocides than the one in Syria?
"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with chapters VI and VIII of the charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the security council, in accordance with the charter … on a case-by-case basis..."
Now in this instance I am fairly sure the Assad regime were behind the chemical attack, and specific missiles could well prevent further catastrophes. But I believe currently there are 22 Wars taking place around the World, surely the R2P law would be relevant for a hell of a lot more genocides than the one in Syria?