How legitimate is foreign involvement in the Syrian free-for-all civil war?

Inspired by the Arab Spring, a graffiti against the government on the wall of a school building in a small town is often cited as the reason for the start of civil war in Syria. But, it is three consecutive years of drought in Syria that acted as the final clincher, triggering the fight that the rebels were looking for. The regime of Bashar al-Assad cracked mercilessly at the rebels killing several.

With the Syrian civil war now in its sixth year, the killings have been non-stop. In the past 5 years, almost 250,000 Syrians have lost their life and approximately 11 million people have been displaced. With the peace accord failing to materialise, there seems to be no end to the hardships inflicted on and experienced by the Syrian people.

Who all are fighting the war?

It started as the war for democracy. That doesn't seem to be the case now. The entire dynamics of war have changed. On one side, there are still the so-called rebels fighting for a new political order mainly the Free Syrian Army and the Islamic Front. While on the other side, there are the militant groups mainly ISIL and Jabhat-al-Nusra whose main aim is to establish caliphate in Syria and Iraq. They took advantage of the tense situation in Syria for their own vested interests.

Then, in the North of Syria, Kurds are waging another war for establishing Kurd autonomy. These include the Peshmerga and People's Protection Unit. Even Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group has joined the war supporting the Assad Government.

If this was not enough, several countries are now involved in the war each picking its own side. The United States is supporting rebels mainly the Free Syrian Army and Kurds against the Assad Government. At the same time, the US is fighting the ISIL and Jabhat-Al- Nusra as US believes these organisations pose a potential threat to its security. The Russians are supporting the Assad Government to protect their own naval base and supply of arms.

The Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are driving their own animosities against the minority Alawite Assad government through the ISIS. The Shia- dominated Iran is backing the Assad government. Thus, the war has the age-old Shia-Sunni conflict at its core.

The neighbouring countries of Turkey and Jordan are also stakeholders in the war with Turkey not supporting the Kurds. Hence, the war has become quite complex with more and more groups/countries joining it. Each side is mercilessly killing the other with no regards to human life and each one is involved in war crimes.

At the end of all this, it is the people of Syria who suffer the most. People have lost their livelihoods, women are being raped, children have been idle for 5 years with no education, youths have no jobs and end up joining the war due to lack of any option. The country reeks of death, blood and stagnancy.

Legitimacy of those involved

With this in background, what is important is to see how legitimate it is for these countries and militant groups to be on the Syrian territory and be fighting. Some may argue that after the 2013 use of chemical weapons in Syria, it is anybody's game but the international realities on war crimes are fairly clear on who can be involved in a sovereign country and who shouldn't.

It is important to understand that the involvement of some of the groups and countries is illegitimate and no amount of reasoning will absolve them of their international responsibilities.

According to the international laws, it is legitimate for a foreign power to enter another sovereign state and fight on its territory, only if it has been invited by that state. Thus, it is clear that Russian involvement in the Syrian war is legitimate under the UN Conventions. However, the same does not hold true for the US, and its presence in the Syrian War is illegitimate.

The US often gives the argument of self-defence for entering the Syrian war as it believes that ISIL poses a potential threat to its security. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, self-defence only applies to actual or imminent armed attacks, rather than potential or possible attacks, further making the US involvement illegitimate.

Also, Article 51 states that: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Article 51 refers to attacks between territorial states, not with non-state actors like ISIS or Jabhat-al-Nusra. Syria did not attack Turkey, Jordan, France, UK or Saudi Arabia and hence, so the legitimacy of these countries to directly or indirectly getting involved in the Syrian war is questionable.

Another argument, often given by the foreign powers for entering and fighting Syrian War is the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2249. The resolution "calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter…on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq.

A very important part of this resolution is "in compliance with international law, in particular with UN Charter". The main function of the UN is to maintain international peace and security and this underlies every resolution passed by the United Nations. In accordance with this, all foreign nations should first explore other measures to fight terror propagated by ISIL such as sharing intelligence, locking down borders and squeezing terror funding rather than fighting the war itself.

Is the Syrian Civil War legitimate?

Over the years, the core reason for fighting the war has been lost. There is no talk of democracy or rights anymore. All we hear are killings, thousands of refugees reaching the European shores, unprecedented war crimes being committed and foreign power play. This brings us to the most important question -- why is there a war in Syria in the first place?

As rightly said, "Never is the slogan on the banner the reason for revolution."