The Self-Defense Argument for Intervention in Syria

News media are reporting today that the strife in Syria has, for the first time, spilled across international borders, with Syrian government forces firing into Turkey last night, killing two people and injuring three others, and also firing into Lebanon. The New York Times suggests that a “large number of reinforcements for the government troops, backed by tanks and helicopters,” may have arrived “close to Turkish territory.” And of course Turkey is already sheltering a large number of refugees from the conflict—over 24,000, by the Turkish government’s estimate.

All of which raises the question of what, if anything, can be done. For the past year, the answer has been very little: Russia and China blocked effective measures in the Security Council; the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention on the basis of the responsibility-to-protect (“R2P”) principle has been contested; and neighboring states seemed to lack a persuasive argument for intervention on the basis of self-defense.

But yesterday’s events suggest that the self-defense argument is strengthening. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes an “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against” a member state, “until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” There is at least a reasonable argument that by firing bullets across the border, amassing troops nearby, and forcing Turkey to cope with a significant influx of refugees, Syria is violating Turkey’s territorial integrity and creating justification for an armed Turkish intervention on the basis of a Turkish right of self-defense.

To be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating the legality of intervention; I’m saying simply that the argument for a self-defense-based intervention is getting stronger. And, of course, whether intervention makes sense as a policy matter is another issue altogether.

Cross-posted at PrawfsBlawg.

Continue ReadingThe Self-Defense Argument for Intervention in Syria

The Use and Misuse of History

In his novel 1984, George Orwell imagined a future world where a government at war could switch allegiances with the country’s enemies and allies and a docile public would accept the revised version of history unquestioningly.  Orwell, a keen observer of the modern world, recognized that history itself could be manufactured and manipulated in the service of broader purposes.

This morning’s edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel contains an opinion piece by Chrisitian Schneider of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) entitled “Not What They Meant Democracy to Look Like.”  In it, Mr. Schneider argues that the current effort to recall Governor Scott Walker and other elected state officials runs contrary to the original intent of Senator Bob La Follette and other advocates of the recall provisions of the Wisconsin State Constitution.  His op ed is excerpted from a larger piece that Mr. Schneider has authored for WPRI entitled “The History of the Recall in Wisconsin.”

In the newspaper piece, Mr. Schneider makes the assertion that “a review of documents and press accounts from the time the recall constitutional amendment passed shows that the current use of the recall is far different from what the original drafters had envisioned.”  His argument is that the recall provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution were intended to apply solely to judges and state senators, and not to executive branch officials such as the governor, because the two year term of office in place for governors at the time that the amendment passed would have made the recall of a governor impractical.

The historical record is completely contrary to Mr. Schneider’s assertion.  Moreover, the evidence that he relies upon is completely inadequate to establish the existence of the skewed original intent that he advances.

Continue ReadingThe Use and Misuse of History

It’s Boring

My son John (age 17) often tells me that one of his teachers, classes, or activities is boring. Sometimes he just smiles and says, “I’m bored.” Hence, I read with special interest the late Susan Sonntag’s suggestion that pain and boredom are the twin evils of modern life. (See As Consciousness Is Harnessed to Flesh, a collection of Sonntag’s journal and notebook writings.)

Sonntag of course acknowledged variations, but she thought pain was concentrated among the poor while boredom tended to plague the middle and upper classes. Law students, law professors, lawyers, and judges surely count among the haves rather than the have-nots.

Nothing is inherently boring, and boredom is personal and subjective. It derives, Sonntag thought, largely from a loss of attention. When we cannot pay attention, we become bored.

If you think a class, a client, or a work task is boring, try changing your frame of attention or perhaps combining two or three frames of attention. Try to think differently about whatever it is you’re thinking about. It might relieve the boredom, but, then again, maybe this advice is boring.

 

Continue ReadingIt’s Boring