It is alarming to the entire world the incident happened to the country of Syria,

wherein the Syrian Government allegedly used chemical weapons on August 21, 2013

against its opposition forces outside the Damascus. This could have unpredictable

consequences for the Syrian population and to its neighboring countries.

Syria is one of the states that have not signed and that have not ratified the

Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production,

stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons (ODNI, 2013). However, Syria

consented to the 1925 Geneva Protocol Convention for the prohibition of the use in war

of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases (Baker, 2013). This is to ratify that Syria are

prohibited to use any chemical weapons which could destroy a certain thing.

Now, it is believed by some non-governmental organizations, that the Syrian

Government possesses a program for chemical weapon which is not susceptible to the

Chemical Weapons Convention. The origin of Syria’s chemical weapon has varied over

years. They probably developed its chemical weapons program in response to perceive

a threat from Israel. It is known to be one of the largest stockpiles of weapons in the

world, Syria is known to store chemical agents in binary form, where two components

of the chemical agent are stored separately and only mixed before being loaded into

ammunitions (Miller, 2013). This will makes transport to safer and simpler but can

vastly expand the number of targets that need to be located and destroyed and makes

them easier to conceal.

 With Syria’s great stock of instrument for warfare, this makes the world to be

aware that those materials that Syrian government has to be wrecked. Due to the

incident happened in August 21, wherein thousands of the Syrian Civilians are killed due

to the chemical weapons scattered to the place. This gives an insight to the world that

it should be put in to end for there no more lives will be put into risks.

But the dilemma within this matter is still ongoing, various queries needed to be

answered on how and what the U.N. should do in order for this case to be resolve?

What drives the Syrian Government to do such acts? What would be the possible

remedies to cure the broken state into a peaceful and loving state? Why U.S plans to

intervene Syria? Why does Russia got involved to this matter? What will happen if such

military intervention of U.S to Syria occurs?

The study of the paper aims to know the procedure of the U.N Assembly in the

abolition of the Chemical Weapons used by the Syrian Government. But how would this

action be able to come? It is been a long term of debate over Syria to have to come to

a stop as the background of an agreement and has been reached to destroy Syria’s

chemical weapons program and the United States has moved back from the edge of

war. United States, as planned by Pres. Barack Obama to have a military intervention in

Syria, this strike is disagreeable not necessarily because of its illegality, but rather

because of its punishing and open-ended nature (Mohamed, 2013). To testify such

illegality to the military action planned by the United States against Syria can be found

to the definition of Aggression adopted by the United Nations in 1974, that “Agression is

the used of Armed Force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or
political independence of another state, or in any manner inconsistent with the Charter

of United Nations” (Cruz, 2001). Thus, United States can only take an intervention to

Syria if does it is authorized to do so by the Security Council or if by the attacking is

acting a genuine self-defense. But to this extent, it should also be considered by the

United Nations that many constituents are being involved to the said incident, many

lives put into risks, and it’s between death and saving lives of others. Nonetheless, an

argument is being upheld that American settlers should be given the consent to use

force in order to alleviate a humanitarian crisis (Campos, 2013). Moreover, an

investigation was conducted from the United Nations to Syria, if by Syrian Government

really was by a part of the explosions made to its state. Thus, United States still hoping

for its best that evident will come out to see that it’s not just the Syrian Rebels who

made the terrible incident but also by the association of its government.

Regarding with the military attack plan of the United States to Syria, Russia,

Syrians’ allied forces, its arm dealer, and its financial backer, barely opposes to U.S

intervention in Syria. If such intervention will do occur, Russian forces would block

efforts at the U.N. Security Council to authorize force or even condemn Assad, (Radia,

2013). Now, U.S and Russia relations are already on the state in strong disagreements

over missile defense, both sides continue to talk about issues like missile defense and

arms control even if there are no breakthroughs. Moreover, as when Syria able to

surrender its chemical arsenal to international control, Syrian’s ally Russia quickly

turned into a firm proposal that was welcomed by the Damascus and echoed by U.N

Chief Ban-Ki-Moon (Kalin and Mohammed, 2013). As such in order not to surrender
wholly its arsenal, Russian secured that they will give evidences to United Nations

Security Council that it is not the Syrian Government who created the chemical weapon

attack to its territory rather than it’s the Syrian rebels who creates the source of

chemical attack to Damascus as stated by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to his

statement during an conference made by the United Nations. Furthermore, with

Russia’s side in opposing to U.S Military Intervention is the Iran, who by in matter has

its resentment to U.S, thus, to the warning statement of Iranian Foreign Minister

Mohammad Javad Zarif, that the use for of military means against Syria will have

serious consequences (Baker, 2013). The threats from Iran and Russia appear intended

to prevent an attack rather than to suggest either country plans to engage in the war

themselves.

So, what the United Nation supposedly should do? In order not to cause any

civil wars between United States and Syria together with its allied forces the Russia.

The United Nations Council set responsibilities and timeline for the destruction of its

chemical weapons and chemical production facilities it would be possible to get ousted

to a resolution synthesized by the United Nations. United Nations Council adopted

Security Council Resolution No. 2118, which incorporated and made binding on Syria an

earlier Decision by the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of

Chemical Weapons, (Toor, 2013). Upon agreeing with the resolution made by the

United Nation, in an interview with the President Assad of Syria that they have put

Syria’s chemical weapon under international supervision in response to Russia’s request

and not because of American threats (Pelley, 2013). With this matter, we should be
able to know that ceasing of one’s chemical weapons does not mean that others would

assume to go for using it, thus, all violence must be stop, all guns must be fall into

silent. We can be again secured that no nations, no people, no war would be held as

there would be a peace that comes after all the insurgencies happened. The Security

Council has taken a major point of action in the Syrian issue, anticipated that relevant

parties will stay in close cooperation, fulfill their respective responsibilities, and

implement the decision and the resolution in a comprehensive and accurate manner so

as to eventually achieve a proper settlement of the issue of chemical weapons in Syria.

Furthermore, everything has not made yet into decision, but the international

norms against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place and nobody

disputes or hardly anybody that disputes that chemical weapons were used on a large

scale in Syria against civilian populations. We have this various evidences which is still

searching for the genuine proofs which we do not believe that the opposition forces had

possess. It is concluded that Syrian Government carried this out, and if that’s so there’s

no need of international consequences. We have to make sure that when countries

break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us,

should be held accountable.

 Fundamental Procedures taken by UN Assembly
for the Total Abolition of Chemical Weapons in Syria

A Seminar Paper

In

International Law

Presented by

June Paolo C. Saguran

Bachelor of Arts Major in Political Science - IV

Father Saturnino Urios University

Bibliography:

Articles:

Richter, Paul (August 28, 2013). "Russian resistance torpedoes United Nations
resolution on Syria". Los Angeles Times.

Kim Hjelmgaard (2013-09-09). "Kerry to Assad: Turn over chemical weapons to prevent
strikes". USA Today. Retrieved 26 September 2013.

Patrick Wintour (2013-09-09). "John Kerry gives Syria week to hand over chemical
weapons or face attack". Guardian (UK). Retrieved 18 September 2013.

Spokesperson (September 14, 2013).Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical

Weapons. state.gov. Retrieved September 14, 2013.

Edith M. Lederer, Matthew Lee (27 September 2013). "UN Security Council votes
unanimously to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile". AP. Retrieved
28 September 2013.

Mohamed Saira, (16 September 2013). “What does Opposition to War in Syria tell Us
about the State of International Law?” Retrieved 17 September 2013.

Mezyaev, Alexander (13 September 2013). “US Policy Violates International Law”
Retrieved 22 September 2013.

Lehmann Christof (30 September 2013). “A critical review of Security Council Resolution
2118 (2013) on Syria. NSBC International.

Online Articles:

Rapoza Kenneth (25 August 2013). “ Russia Warns U.S Over Syria, Says Obama Like
Bush. Retrieved from. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/08/25/russia-
warns-u-s-over-syria-says-obama-like-bush/

Baker Aryn (27 August 2013). “Russia and Iran Warn Against Intervention in Syria”
Retrieved from. http://world.time.com/2013/08/27/russia-and-iran-warn-against-
intervention-in-syria/

Kalin Stephen and Mohammed Arshad (9 September 2013). “Russia proposes Syria
chemical weapons deal to avert U.S. strike”. Retrieved from.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130909

Miller Chris (13 September 2013). “Syria Chemical Weapons: This is How You Disarm
Them”. Retrieved from. http://www.policymic.com/articles/62911/syria-chemical-
weapons-this-is-how-you-disarm-them