International Law on the Use of Force (ILUF) – Airstrikes, Imperialism, and Civilian Harm
The Global Divide on Intervention in the War on ISIS, SOAS University School of Law
Introduction:
Western-led military interventions against countries of the Global South, such as Iraq, Syria, and the Sahel (to name but a few) undermine and, frequently, entirely bypass international law on the use of force (ILUF). Drawn from Articles 2(4), 51, and Chapter VII of the UN Charter, international legal interpretations of ILUF will be shown to significantly differ between the Global North and Global South.[2] This divide shapes its legal construction and interpretation, as can be seen in the Counter-terrorism (CT) framing of military interventions against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, as well as how the violence is later legitimised and (more often, not) prosecuted to differing degrees. While airstrikes and force are justified under broad CT mandates, civilian harm is rarely scrutinised under the same standards of international law. The effect is a two-tiered system: restraint and protection in the Global North, but aggressive, exception-based enforcement in the Global South, shaping interpretations of jus ad bellum and jus in bello even before the next situation is invariably considered. In such a divided system, ‘Legality’ is just another form of Imperialism.
Coalition Use of Force against ISIS in Syria:
Since 2014, US-led Coalition forces have carried out thousands of airstrikes across Syria, ostensibly targeting non-state terrorist actors. Yet, these actions occurred without the consent of the Syrian government, nor with clear UN Security Council authorisation, raising fundamental questions under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the customary prohibition on the use of force. The Global Coalition’s anti-ISIS members (mostly, Western states) have relied on shifting justifications such as collective self-defence of Iraq or the nebulous ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine, the latter of which lacks firm grounding in international law but continues to shape practice. From a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) perspective, arguing that international law is often constructed in ways that reinforce Northern dominance, Syria’s treatment illustrates the persistent double standards in the application of ILUF: legal clarity was superseded by Western political expediency.
The UN Security Council’s adoption of Resolutions 2170 (2014) and 2249 (2015) legitimised the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. From a TWAIL perspective, these resolutions show how international law disproportionately authorises interventionist practices in the Global South under the guise of global security.[3] Resolution 2170 condemned ISIS and Al-Qaeda for their atrocities and called for Member States to take “national measures” to suppress their flow of fighters and finances.[4] Resolution 2249 went slightly further, calling on states to take “all necessary measures” against ISIS in areas it controls in Syria and Iraq.[5] Although it stopped short of invoking Chapter VII, the resolution effectively provides legal and political cover for ongoing Western airstrikes and covert operations, bypassing questions of Syrian sovereignty. TWAIL scholars have critiqued such resolutions for reinforcing a security-centric, Global North-led regime, enabling powerful states to project force into postcolonial spaces while sidestepping scrutiny of civilian casualties and long-term instability – a story, it seems, as long as international law itself.[6] The international legal order treats the South not as a site of equal sovereign agency, but as a “space of exception” where international law permits what would never be allowed in the North.[7] Such selective legalism undermines ILUF.[8]
Ikechi Mgbeoji has critiqued how international law remains steeped in colonial binaries of the “civilised” West versus the “barbaric” non-West.[9] In Syria, where intervention has been justified for aid or security, this framing hides historical injustices. Lisa Hajjar has argued that after torture ‘was taken off the table’ through strategic litigation, the US administration shifted its state practice from capture to targeted air strikes.[10] The rhetoric around ‘failed states’ and ‘rogue regimes’ reflects imperial delusions that undermine international law. Vasuki Nesiah further interrogates the limits of international law as a language of resistance, showing how ilegal arguments about sovereignty have often legitimised ongoing violence, regime change, occupation, intervention and pre-emptive force.[11] Nesiah urges radical, historically grounded critiques of empire rather than this CT ‘smokescreen’.[12]
The dominance of CT law in conflict zones is another illustration of the North–South divide in the application of ILUF.[13] As Julien Antouly and Rebecca Mignot-Mahdavi’s study shows, in Global South contexts, prosecutors are often encouraged to rely on CT frameworks rather than IHL norms.[14] In the context of interventions against groups like ISIS, this preference for CT frameworks often justifies the use of force in ways that evade scrutiny, normalise civilian harm and erode legal protections that should apply equally – perpetuating violence. This enforcement shows how legal regimes are selectively applied, reinforcing global hierarchies of (il)legality.
Sarah Nouwen’s critique of the ‘individualization of war’ is another lens through which to understand how Global North-led interventions contribute to selective enforcement and civilian harm in the Global South.[15] Nouwen shows how the emphasis on prosecuting individual perpetrators, often through international criminal law, generates tension with broader agendas such as humanitarian aid and peacebuilding. [16] In contexts such as Iraq and Syria, this is obvious: while airstrikes by coalition forces cause significant civilian casualties, legal and political accountability mechanisms focus almost exclusively on the crimes of local actors (e.g. ISIS commanders), avoiding scrutiny of the states deploying force. This reflects a broader structural bias in ILUF whereby Global North actors both wield the law to justify intervention and avoid its constraints. Nouwen’s analysis also challenges the illusion of ‘resolution’ in legal responses to conflict. For example, policy priorities such as justice and stability are placed in a seemingly irreconcilable tension, and legal strategies typically entrench one agenda over others through political choice.
The absence of Syria’s consent – and recent developments:
US-led strikes in Syria were conducted without consent from Assad’s government, instead justified under the “collective self-defence” of Iraq and the global fight against terrorism. Northern states argued in the Security Council and newspapers of their capitals that this was a necessary response to an international security crisis. Iraq did indeed request military assistance against ISIS, meaning support was self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, one could also ask how much agency and free sovereignty Iraq had.[17] Even in post-ISIS Syria, Global North actors still invoke doctrines like collective self-defence to justify prolonged military campaigns, yet show little interest in sustained humanitarian recovery or structural justice. The US-led coalition’s justification for intervention has endured long beyond the immediate threat, with limited reassessment of its legal basis for deadly airstrikes.
The recent collapse of Assad’s regime in an 11-day offensive led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) also owed much to the withdrawal of foreign backers, highlighting how external state interests have long determined Syria’s sovereignty. Israel’s renewed airstrikes and occupation of Syrian territory demonstrate the Global North’s persistent prioritisation of perceived security over sovereignty, while US indecision and reluctance to constrain allies like Israel or Turkey reaffirms the asymmetrical application of ILUF norms. Syria’s transition is thus shaped not only by internal dynamics but by a fractured and highly politicised international legal order, in which the same actors who bombed cities under the pretext of fighting terrorism now control access to aid, recognition, and stability.[18] William Plowright’s analysis of armed groups’ engagement with international law, drawing on research in Syria, shows that even violent non-state actors such as al-Qaeda and ISIS have sought international legitimacy by demonstrating compliance with IHL, particularly around issues like the recruitment of child soldiers –complicating narratives of international law as a civilising force. [19] Such questions reinforce the need to interrogate how legitimacy and compliance are constructed, and who gets to define lawful conduct in conflicts where imperialist interventions blur the lines between law and power.
Selective interpretations of humanitarian intervention and civilian deaths:
Over 14 million Syrians were dependent on humanitarian aid in 2022, and such devastating conditions remain, with a poverty rate at around 90 percent.[20] The challenges faced by aid organisations in delivering assistance to affected populations in 2025 means that many continue to advocate for increased international cooperation to alleviate the suffering of Syrian civilians.[21] As Natasha Hall put it, “trying to build an effective government and a disciplined army in a war-ravaged country without humanitarian aid or sanction relief is like trying to get up with a boot on your neck.”[22] Hall’s analysis of post-Assad Syria provides useful context for understanding the geopolitical complexity underpinning foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict.
As Hans-Joachim Heintze recently noted, Syria’s obligation under international law to allow humanitarian aid derives from the acute dependency of its population, whose livelihoods have been decimated by over a decade of armed conflict.[23] Despite the catastrophic need, the UN Security Council’s mechanism for cross-border aid into Syria has too often been a site of political contestation rather than purely humanitarian action. Although Resolution 2585 (2021) re-authorised access, it was only granted for six months instead of the customary year, reflecting how international humanitarian principles are subordinated to geopolitical agendas.[24] This restriction reveals the fractured consensus in the Security Council and underscores how Global North states have instrumentalised aid as a tool of leverage. In a context like Syria, where airstrikes and blockades have already undermined state infrastructure and civilian survival, the politicisation of aid further evidences the unequal application of international obligations based on shifting strategic interests.
Equally, despite mounting evidence of civilian deaths, including a landmark 2019 investigation by Amnesty International and Airwars revealing that the US-led Coalition’s assault on Raqqa in 2017 resulted in the deaths of at least 1,600 civilians, no state has accepted responsibility for individual strikes, and the Coalition’s multinational structure has allowed member states to deflect legal scrutiny through strategic ambiguity.[25] Amnesty described the offensive (ostensibly against ISIS) as “the most comprehensive investigation into civilian deaths in a modern conflict,” uncovering indiscriminate and imprecise bombardments that devastated 70% of the city.[26] Despite evidence that many of the strikes violated IHL, the Coalition dismissed the majority of allegations as “non-credible,” conducted no on-site investigations, and has yet to offer reparations to victims’ families. The destruction of Raqqa exemplifies how Global North powers weaponise ILUF and humanitarian rhetoric to justify unaccountable force in the Global South, while eschewing legal scrutiny themselves.
Similarly, Human Rights Watch investigations from 2017 into US-led Coalition airstrikes in Mosul and Raqqa exposed horrifying indiscriminate attacks in densely populated neighbourhoods.[27] In Tabqa and Mansourah, in Syria, HRW found that Coalition strikes on a market and a school killed at least 84 civilians, many of them children and displaced persons, despite local knowledge that these sites were heavily populated.[28] One doesn’t even need to deploy a TWAIL perspective to see how these incidents reveal a vast double standard in the application of ILUF: powerful Global North states justify expansive bombing campaigns in the Global South with minimal accountability, while failing to implement meaningful investigations or redress mechanisms. The Coalition’s reliance on remote intelligence, delegation of targeting authority, and refusal to conduct on-the-ground inquiries reflect an imperial logic that reduces civilian harm in postcolonial contexts to collateral damage. The failure to properly investigate or compensate the victims of these airstrikes reflects a broader pattern of selective legal enforcement, where the doctrines meant to protect civilians are circumvented when the perpetrators are powerful states. It undermines victims' access to truth and remedy, and also threatens the preservation of evidence.[29] As Syria transitions into a new political phase, the country’s engagement with accountability mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) is gaining new urgency.
The lack of accountability for Western-led military actions in Iraq and Syria is not merely a failure of procedure but reveals a deeper structural bias within the international legal order, long critiqued by TWAIL scholars for its imperial genealogy and double standards in enforcement. While the UK and US assert leadership in promoting the rule of law globally, they routinely insulate their own armed forces from scrutiny and accountability, particularly where operations result in civilian harm abroad. UK investigatory mechanisms, such as “IHAT” and “SPA”, proved opaque and ineffective, long before the passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021.[30] Meanwhile, the ICC’s decision to drop its preliminary examination into UK war crimes in Iraq in 2020, despite credible evidence, reveals how complementarity can serve not justice, but the political shielding of powerful states unwilling to prosecute their own.[31] The contrast with prosecutions brought against leaders and soldiers from the Global South (often in situations where political consensus or limited geopolitical risk exists) lays bare what Chimni calls the “selective universalism” of international criminal law.[32] In the UK context, this impunity is reinforced by a pattern of bureaucratic deflection, as seen also in the closure of local compensation offices in Iraq and Afghanistan and the repeated framing of potential human rights abuses as ‘vexatious claims’; a narrative cemented by the downfall of Phil Shiner.[33] As Mohsen al Attar warns, unless international law confronts its own complicity in whitewashing imperial violence, it will remain a tool of domination rather than emancipation.[34]
Contradictions in doctrines:
While Northern states use flexible interpretations of self-defence to justify intervention in Syria, they deny similar latitude to Global South actors. In early 2022 (and before), Russia’s intervention in Ukraine was as widely condemned as Ethiopia’s self-defence claim against Eritrea. Western interventions also often bypass UN Security Council authorisation, undermining the multilateral legal order. The veto power of P5 states has invariably led to the selective enforcement of international law, with the US, UK and France justifying intervention while blocking accountability for their own actions. Self-defence has been reinterpreted to mollify powerful states. Renowned Islamic scholar Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im continues to make the case that the rejection of violent jihad must be grounded in a principled commitment to international legality, as well as Islamic Law; yet international law's double standards undermine this appeal.[35] In Syria, international actors act outside legal frameworks while calling for adherence to them; An-Na’im’s stresses that the legitimacy of international norms depends on their universality and institutional integrity.[36]
Shelley Wright’s critique of international law following 9/11 exposes how legal responses to violence are shaped by gendered, racialised, and colonial logics.[37] Wright argues that the law’s purported universality is in fact produced through the erasure of non-Western experiences and legal cultures, particularly in contexts marked by imperial legacies.[38] In the Syrian conflict, such logics are evident in how humanitarian interventions, drone strikes, and counterterrorism discourses are legitimated through a civilisational frame that renders violence by Western states legal, while framing the resistance of actors in the Global South as illegitimate or criminal. Wright's notion of “the horizon of becoming” (in short: a call for more plural, historically conscious legal understandings) encourages a TWAIL reading of the ILUF that resists reductive binaries and demands attention to whose violence is sanctioned, whose suffering is silenced, and whose law is upheld. Ghuna Bdiwi also raises timely questions about the pursuit of criminal accountability during ongoing conflicts, drawing on Syria as a case study for the selectivity and political utility of international law.[39] But Bdiwi’s framing helps reimagine accountability not as a final judicial act, but as a continuing, collective expression of solidarity and resistance.[40]
Responsibility to Protect:
The UNSC has also addressed the situation in Syria through further resolutions. Notably, Resolution 2254 (2015) called for a ceasefire and political settlement in Syria, emphasising the need for all states to respect Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity.[41] Despite such resolutions, the international community's response has been fragmented, with differing approaches to the use of force against terrorist actors, the invocation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and humanitarian interventions.[42] Over the past decade, the justification for the use of force against terrorist groups in Syria has evolved. Initially framed as collective self-defence or operations against non-state actors, these interventions often lacked transparency and accountability, particularly when conducted by coalitions of states with ambiguous delineations of responsibility. The R2P doctrine, intended to prevent mass atrocities, has been selectively applied, leading to criticisms of double standards and undermining its credibility. The shift towards a “human security” paradigm, focusing on the protection of individuals rather than states, has been inconsistent.[43] From a TWAIL perspective, these inconsistencies prove the need for a more equitable application of international legal principles. As Syria's relationship with international accountability mechanisms develops, the potential accession of Syria to the ICC might provide a forum for addressing British military war crimes.[44]
Tom Ruys and Luca Ferro’s analysis of the Netherlands’ non-lethal assistance programme to Syrian rebel groups between 2015 and 2018 shows the legal complications entailed in external support to non-state armed actors.[45] Despite the programme’s intentional design to remain within the bounds of international law, the authors conclude that it breached the principles of non-intervention, the prohibition on the use of force, and the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law.[46] For TWAIL scholars, this yet again demonstrates how international legal norms are selectively interpreted and operationalised by states.
Conclusion:
In Nussaibah Younis’ novel on “ISIS brides” and UN agencies seeking their rehabilitation, East Londoner Sara cuts through the noise to show the double standards; Global South militants labelled terrorists, Northern military interventions framed as legal enforcement.[47] Four months after Assad’s overthrow, Syria faces the threat of economic collapse, fuelled by fears of factional violence or ISIS resurgence. Considering such interpretations of state terrorism and imperialist aggression, however, the intervention of external actors such as Israel, exploiting instability by conducting military operations and bolstering proxies, may prove the most disturbing.
Syria’s evolving dynamics also show the inconsistencies in the application of ILUF. On 2 April, Israeli airstrikes targeted military bases and infrastructure in Damascus, Hama and Homs; justified as necessary to prevent the establishment of hostile forces near Israel’s borders.[48] Conducted without the consent of Syria's internationally recognised government, breaching principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, the strikes were illegal under international law. Selective enforcement undermines international legitimacy, fuels resentment, and weakens the global legal order.
Furthermore, Western aid has largely dried up, and sweeping US sanctions remain in place, severely limiting Syria’s ability to rebuild. While the US demands compliance before offering relief, this approach is seen as punitive and obstructive from a Global South perspective. The absence of consistent humanitarian support or reparative justice will only continue to deepen perceptions of selective enforcement and neo-imperialist double standards in the application of ILUF. Which “law” will Syria’s new government choose to follow, if it has the choice? International Law – perhaps ratifying the Rome Statute? – or Islamic Law, following the gradual steer of Iraq’s parliament across the border, or potentially a reformulation of Syria’s legal system under Assad? The direction the country chooses will answer the question on the Global North-South divide better than this essay ever could. Time will tell.
(Word Count: 3,153)
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, arts 43, 44, 51(3), and 96(3) <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/470> accessed 20 March 2025.
Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609, arts 1, 2, and 4(1) <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/475> accessed 20 March 2025.
Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, arts 2(4), 39, 41, 42, and 51, Ch VII.
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, S Treaty Doc No 100-20, 1465 UNTS 85 <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading> accessed 20 March 2025.
Geneva Conventions (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 31.
International Criminal Court (ICC), ‘Situation in Iraq/UK - Final Report’ (9 December 2020) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf> accessed 3 April 2025.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136.
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) [2003] ICJ 161.
R v Philip Shiner (2024) Sentencing Remarks <https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rex-v-philip-shiner/> accessed 3 April 2025.
UK Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 ss 8–10.
UN Human Rights Council, ‘Human Rights Impact of Civilian Harm in Conflict Zones’ (Report No A/HRC/49/CRP.2, March 2022).
UNSC Res 2170 (15 August 2014) UN Doc S/RES/2170.
UNSC Res 2249 (20 November 2015) UN Doc S/RES/2249.
UNSC Res 2254 (18 December 2015) UN Doc S/RES/2254.
UNSC Res 2585 (9 July 2021) UN Doc S/RES/2585.
Secondary Sources:
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘Problems of Universal Cultural Legitimacy for Human Rights,’ in Human Rights in Africa (Brookings Institute 1990).
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘The Compatibility Dialectic: Mediating the Legitimate Coexistence of Islamic Law and State Law’ The Modern Law Review 73(1) (2010).
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘The Islamic Law of Apostasy and its Applicability: A Case from Sudan’ Religion 16 (1986).
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘The Rights of Women and International Law in the Muslim Context’ Whittier Law Review 9 (1988), 491–516.
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘Toward a Cross-Cultural Approach to Defining International Standards of Human Rights: The Meaning of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,’ in Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest for Consensus (University of Pennsylvania Press 1995).
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘Why Should Muslims Abandon Jihad? Human Rights and the Future of International Law’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 785.
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest for Consensus (University of Pennsylvania Press 1995).
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (Syracuse University Press 1990).
Adekeye Adebajo, Building Peace in West Africa (Boulder 2002).
Airwars, ‘At least 1,600 civilians died in US-led Coalition actions at Raqqa, major new study finds’ (Airwars, 25 April 2019) <https://airwars.org/news/raqqa-amnesty-airwars> accessed 3 April 2025.
Alannah Travers, ‘On the 11th anniversary of the Syrian uprising, 90 percent live in poverty’ (Rudaw English, 14 March 2022) <https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/140320222> accessed 3 April 2025.
Aleksandar Jokic (ed), Lessons of Kosovo: The Dangers of Humanitarian Intervention (Broadview Press 2002).
Alex Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect: A Defence (Oxford University Press 2014).
Amal Clooney and Philippa Webb, The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law (Oxford University Press 2021).
Andrew Clapham, Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2015).
Anne Orford, ‘Jurisdiction without Territory: From the Holy Roman Empire to the Responsibility to Protect’ Michigan Journal of international Law 30 (2009) 981.
Anne Orford, ‘Locating the International: Military and Monetary Interventions after the Cold War’ Harvard International Law Journal 38 (1997) 443.
Anne Orford, ‘Muscular Humanitarianism: Reading the Narratives of the New Interventionism’ 10 (4) EJIL (1999) 679.
Anne Orford, Reading Humanitarian Interventions (CUP 2003).
Anni Pues, ‘The Syrian Conflict and the Norm of Non-Intervention: Explaining the US Decision Not to Intervene’ (2019) 28(1) Finnish Yearbook of International Law 19.
Anthony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (CUP 2005).
Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005).
Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law (Oxford University Press 2015).
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance(Cambridge University Press 2003).
Bhupinder S. Chimni, ‘Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto’ International Community Law Review 8 (2006) 3.
Chatham House, ‘The US and UK Approach to the Use of Force in Syria’ (2021) https://www.chathamhouse.org accessed 20 March 2025.
Christine Chinkin and Hilary Charlesworth, ‘Building Women into Peace: The International Legal Framework’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 937.
Christine Gray, ‘A Crisis of Legitimacy for the UN Collective Security System?’ 56, ICLQ (2007), 157.
Christine Gray, ‘Targeted Killings: Recent US Attempts to create a Legal Framework’ 66 Current Legal Problems (2013) 76.
Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force (OUP 2018).
Christopher Greenwood, ‘International Law and the Pre-emptive Use of Force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’ (2003) 4(7) San Diego International Law Journal 7-37.
Colin John McInnes, Spectator-Sport War: The West and Contemporary Conflict (London 2002).
Costas Douzinas, The End of Human Rights: Critical Legal Thought at the Turn of the Century (Oxford Hart 2000).
Cynthia Cockburn and Dubravka Žarkov (eds), The Postwar Moment: Militaries, Masculinities and International Peacekeeping (Lawrence and Wishart 2002).
Dapo Akande et al. (eds.), Human Rights & 21st Century Challenges: Poverty, Conflict, and the Environment (Oxford University Press 2020).
Dapo Akande, ‘Clearing the Fog of War?’ (4 June 2009) EJIL:Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/clearing-the-fog-of-war-the-icrcs-interpretive-guidance-on-direct-participation-in-hostilities/> accessed 20 March 2025.
Dapo Akande, ‘International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court’ (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 407.
Dapo Akande, ‘The Effect of Security Council Resolutions and Domestic Proceedings on State Obligations to Cooperate with the ICC’ Journal of International Criminal Justice 10 (2012) 299.
David Chandler, ‘The Road to Military Humanitarianism: How the Human Rights NGOs Shaped a New Humanitarian Agenda’ Human Rights Quarterly 23(3) (2001).
David Kaye, ‘Laws of War in the Age of Asymmetric Conflict’ Chicago Journal of International Law 11(1) (2010).
David Kennedy, The Dark Side of Virtue (Princeton University Press 2004).
David Kennedy, The Dark Side of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism (Princeton University Press 2004).
Declan Roche, Accountability in Restorative Justice (Oxford University Press 2003).
Deniz Kandiyoti, ‘Between the Hammer and the Anvil: Post-conflict Reconstruction, Islam and Women’s Rights’ Third World Quarterly 28 (2007) 503.
Dino Kritsiotis, ‘Mercenaries and the Privatization of Warfare’ (1998) 22 Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 11.
Edward C. Luck, ‘The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade’ in Alex J Bellamy and Tim Dunne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect (Oxford University Press 2016).
Edward Said, ‘Political Asylum and Torture: a comparative analysis’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 871-883.
Edward Said, Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine how we see the Rest of the World (Vintage 1997).
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, ‘“Impossible or Disproportionate Burden”: The UK’s Approach to the Investigatory Obligation under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR’ (2020) 5 European Human Rights Law Review 499.
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, ‘Distorted Terminology: The UK’s Closure of Investigations into Alleged Torture and Inhuman Treatment in Iraq’ (2019) 68 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 719.
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, ‘Solving the Conundrum between Military Training, Prevention and Compliance in International Humanitarian Law’ (PhD, SOAS University 2017) <https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/30290/1/4580_Bates.pdf> accessed 3 January 2025.
Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, ‘Strengthening UK military investigations into civilian harm: Towards compliance, mitigation and accountability’ Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights (November 2024).
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, ‘The Chatham House Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-defence’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55 (2006) 963.
Emanuela-Chiara Gillard, Enhancing the security of civilians in conflict (Chatham House 2024)
Emanuela-Chiara Gilllard, ‘Reparation for Violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (2003) 85 International Review of the Red Cross.
Emily Crawford, and Alison Pert, International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press 2015).
Gerry Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (CUP 2004).
Ghuna Bdiwi, ‘Should we call for criminal accountability during ongoing conflicts?’ Journal of International Criminal Justice 21(4) (2023) 719-734.
Gina Heathcote, The Law on the Use of Force: A Feminist Analysis (Routledge 2013).
Hans-Joachim Heintze, ‘Die völkerrechtliche Pflicht Syriens, humanitäre Hilfe zu gestatten’, Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht: Festschrift für Rainer Hofmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Heidelberg 2023), 399-410.
Human Rights Watch, ‘Iraq: Civilian Casualties Mount in West Mosul’ (Human Rights Watch, 6 June 2017) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/07/iraq-civilian-casualties-mount-west-mosul> accessed 2 April 2025.
Human Rights Watch, ‘Targeting Life in Raqqa: US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Syria’ (Human Rights Watch, 24 October 2017) https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/09/25/all-feasible-precautions/civilian-casualties-anti-isis-coalition-airstrikes-syria> accessed 2 April 2025.
Ikechi Mgbeoji, ‘The Civilised Self and the Barbaric Other: Imperial Delusions of Order and Challenges of Human Security’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 855.
Ikechi Mgbeoji, Collective Insecurity, UBC, 2003.
Ilias Bantekas and Lutz Oette, International Human Rights Law and Practice, 4th Edition (Cambridge University Press 2024).
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), ‘2024 ICRC Report on IHL and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts’ (26 September 2024) <https://www.icrc.org/en/report/2024-icrc-report-ihl-challenges> 20 March 2025.
International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts’ (2019) https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-report-ihl-and-challenges-contemporary-armed-conflictsaccessed 20 March 2025.
International Criminal Court (ICC), ‘Syria and the ICC’ <https://www.icc-cpi.int/resources/syria> accessed 3 April 2025.
James Traub, ‘The Next Resolution’ (New York Times, 13 April 2003) <https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/magazine/the-next-resolution.html> accessed 20 March 2025.
Jan Klabbers, International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
Jean d’Aspremont, International Law as a Belief System (CUP 2017).
Judith Gardam, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States (Cambridge University Press, 2004)
Julien Antouly and Rebecca Mignot-Mahdavi, ‘Thinking with IHL in contexts of counterterrorism: the case of criminal justice systems in the Sahel’ Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 25 (2022), 109-138.
Kate Grady, ‘War and Order: Rethinking Criminal Accountability for the Iraq War’ (2021) 9(2) London Review of International Law 245.
Katie Peters, ‘International Law and the Use of Force’ Queensland University of technology Law and Justice Journal 4(2) (2004) 185.
Keiichiro Okimoto, ‘The Protection of Detainees in International Humanitarian Law’ in Sarah Perrigo, and Jim Whitman (eds), The Geneva Conventions Under Assault (Pluto Press 2010).
Keseme Philip Odudu, and Ebitari Joshua Allison, ‘International Humanitarian Law: The Status of Unlawful Combatants’ (2017) 8 Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence 38.
Kofi Annan, ‘Iraq War Was Illegal’ (BBC News, 16 September 2004) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm> accessed 20 February 2025.
Lawrence Hill Cawthorne, ‘Rights under international humanitarian law’ (2017) 28 (4) European Journal of International Law 1187.
Lily Hamourtziadou, Body Count: The War on Terror and Civilian Deaths in Iraq (Bristol University Press 2021).
Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court (University of California Press 2024).
Luisa Vierucci, ‘Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants? The Judicial Safeguards to which Guantanamo Bay Detainees are Entitled’ (2003) 1(2) Journal of International Criminal Justice 284.
Luke Moffett and Clara Sandoval, ‘Tilting at Windmills: Reparations at the International Criminal Court’ (2021) Leiden Journal of International Law 34(3) 749.
Lutz Oette, The Transformation of the Prohibition of Torture in International Law (Oxford University Press 2024).
Makau Matua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique (Philadelphia University Press 2002).
Makau Mutua, ‘Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights’ Harvard International Law Journal 42 (2001) 201.
Marguerite R. Waller, ‘Not Your Usual Agit-Prop: Making the Walls Come Down’ International Feminist Journal of Politics 3(1) (2000) 119-123.
Mark Drumbl, Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law (Cambridge University Press 2007), 23-45
Mark Lattimer, ‘The Duty in International Law to Investigate Civilian Deaths in Armed Conflict’ in Mark Lattimer and Philippe Sands (eds.), Between Human Rights and the Laws of War (Bloomsbury 2018).
Mark Lattimer, ‘The duty to investigate civilian deaths in armed conflict: Looking beyond criminal investigations’ (22 October 2018) EJIL:Talk! <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-duty-to-investigate-civilian-deaths-in-armed-conflict-looking-beyond-criminal-investigations> accessed 28 March 2025.
Martti Koskenniemi, ‘The Place of Law in Collective Security,’ Michigan Journal of International Law 17 (1996) 255.
Mary Kaldor, Human Security (Polity Press 2007).
Mashood A. Baderin, ‘Human Rights and Islamic Law: The Myth of Discord’ European Human Rights Law Review (2) (2005) 163-183.
Mashood A. Baderin, International Human Rights and Islamic Law (OUP 2003).
Mashood A. Baderin, Islamic Law: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2021).
Matthew C Waxman, ‘The Use of Force Against ISIS: American Military Intervention in Syria and the Law of Self-Defense’ (2016) 39(1) Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 41.
Matthew Craven, ‘Humanitarianism and the Quest for Smarter Sanctions’ EJIL 13(1) (2002) 43.
Matti Pinto, ‘Historical Trends of Human Rights Gone Criminal’ HRQ 42 (2020) 729.
Michael Byers, ‘Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 51 (2002), 401.
Michael Byers, War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict (Atlantic Books 2005).
Mohammad Shahabuddin, ‘Postcolonial Boundaries, International Law, and the Making of the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar’ (2019) 9(2) Asian Journal of International Law 334.
Mohsen al Attar, ‘Of Anti-Colonialism and International Legal Pedagogy’ OpinioJuris (22 February 2023) <https://opiniojuris.org/2023/02/22/of-anti-colonialism-and-international-legal-pedagogy-can-we-visualise-a-post-westphalian-world> accessed 20 March 2025.
Mohsen al Attar, ‘Pathways in the Struggle Against the Racialised Universe of International Law’ OpinioJuris (5 April 2022) <https://opiniojuris.org/2022/04/05/a-corrective-methodology-pathways-in-the-struggle-against-the-racialised-universe-of-international-law> accessed 20 March 2025.
Mohsen al Attar, ‘Tackling White Ignorance in International Law’ OpinioJuris (30 September 2022) <https://opiniojuris.org/2022/09/30/tackling-white-ignorance-in-international-law-how-much-time-do-you-have-its-not-enough> accessed 20 March 2025.
N.K. Modirzadeh, ‘Taking Islamic Law Seriously: INGOs and the Battle for Muslim Hearts and Minds’ Harvard Human Rights Journal (2006).
Nada Ali, 'Through a Glass Darkly: The ICC, the UNSC and the Quest for Justice in International Law' (2019) 19(4) International Criminal Law Review 669-697.
Nader Iskandar Diab ‘Enforcement action by regional organisations revisited: the prospective joint Arab forces’ Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 4(1) (2017) 86-109.
Natasha Hall, ‘There’s Still a Chance to Get Syria Right’ (New York Times, 2 April 2025) <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/opinion/syria-war-humanitarian-aid.html> accessed 3 April 2025.
Natasha Hall, ‘With the Fall of Assad, Can Syria Rise? Survival 67(1) (2025) 45–54.
Nathaniel Berman, ‘Privileging Combat? Contemporary Conflict and the Legal Construction of War’ (2004) 43 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1.
Nathaniel Floyd, ‘The Targeting of Undersea Communications Cables: Toward a Customary International Law of Digital Infrastructure Protection’ Minnesota Journal of International Law 32(2) (2023) 45.
Naz K Modirzadeh, ‘The Grey Zone: Civilian Protection between Human Rights and the Laws of War’ (2017) 16(2) European Journal of International Law 333.
Nils Melzer, ‘Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law’ (ICRC 2009).
Nussaibah Younis, Fundamentally (Orion Books 2025).
Obiora Chinedu Okafor, ‘Critical Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL): Theory, Methodology, or Both?’ International Community Law Review 10 (2008) 371.
Olivier Corten, The Law against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Hart 2010).
Oscar Solera, ‘The Crime of Aggression: Lessons not Learned’ Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 42 (2010) 801.
Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman, International Human Rights: The Successor to International Human Rights Law in Context: Law, Politics and Morals (Oxford University Press 2012).
Philip Alston, ‘The Populist Challenge to Human Rights’ Journal of Human Rights Practice 9(1) (2017) 1.
Philippe Sands, Lawless World (Allen Lane 2005).
Philippe Sands, Torture Team (Palgrave Macmillan 2008).
Phoebe Okowa, ‘The Security Council, the African Union and the International Criminal Court: Anatomy of a Problematic Relationship’, in Jonas Ebbesson, Maries Jacobsson et al. (eds.), International law and Changing Perceptions of Security: Liber Amicorum Said Mahmoudi (Brill Nijhoff, 2014), 228-234.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone (Vintage Books 2006).
Rawan Shaif, ‘Syria’s Paper Trail of Atrocity Must Be Preserved’ (Foreign Policy, 17 December 2024) <https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/12/17/syria-assad-fall-prisons-documentation-records-sednaya> accessed 3 April 2025.
Rebecca Sutton, ‘Operationalising distinction in South Sudan: Humanitarian decision-making about military asset use’ in Civility, barbarism, and the evolution of international humanitarian law: Who do the laws of war protect? (Cambridge University Press 2024) 135-155.
Reuters, ‘Israeli Airstrikes Hit Syrian Military Sites in Damascus, Hama and Homs’ (2 April 2025) <https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-airstrike-targets-barzeh-neighborhood-syrias-damascus-state-news-agency-2025-04-02> accessed 3 April 2025.
Reza Afshari, ‘An Essay on Islamic Cultural Relativism in the Discourse of Human Rights’ Human Rights Quarterly16(2) (1994) 235-276.
Robert Keohane and J.L. Holzgrefe, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge University Press 2003).
Robin DiAngelo, Nice racism: How progressive white people perpetuate racial harm (Beacon Press 2021).
Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why Understanding Racism Can Be So Hard for White People (Beacon Press 2022).
Robin Geiß, Andreas Zimmermann, and Stefanie Haumer (eds), Humanizing the Laws of War: The Red Cross and the Development of International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press 2017).
Roseanne Burke and Mark Lattimer, ‘Reparations for civilian harm from military operations: Towards a UK policy’ Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights (December 2021).
Rumee Ahmed, Narratives of Islamic Legal Theory (Oxford University Press 2012).
Ryan Goodmann, Derek Jinks and Andrew Woods (eds.), Promoting Human Rights through International Law (Oxford University Press 2013).
Sadiq Reza, ‘Torture and Islamic Law’ Chicago Journal of International Law 8(1) (2007) 21-42.
Samuel Charap, 'Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention' Survival 55 (2013) 35
Sarah M.H. Nouwen, ‘Tensions between the Pursuit of Criminal Accountability and Other International Policy Agendas in Situations of Armed Conflict’ in Jennifer Welsh (ed.) et al, The Individualization of War: Rights, Liability, and Accountability in Contemporary Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2023) 187-219.
Sharath Srinivasan, When Peace Kills Politics (Hurst & Company 2021).
Shelley Wright, ‘The Horizon of Becoming: Culture, Gender and History after September 11’ Nordic Journal of International Law 71 (2002) 215.
Stephen Floyd, ‘The targeting of undersea communications cables: armed conflict, developing states, and the need for a TWAIL approach’ Minnesota Journal of International Law 32(2) (2023) 39-92.
Sundhya Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (CUP 2011).
Sundhya Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality(Cambridge University Press 2011).
Thomas Franck, ‘What Happens Now? The UN After Iraq’ (2004) 15(3) European Journal of International Law 633.
Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.), The Persistent Power of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2013).
Timothy Wood, Detainee Abuse During Op TELIC: ‘A Few Rotten Apples’? (Palgrave, 2015).
Tom Ruys and Luca Ferro, The enemy of my enemy: Dutch non-lethal assistance for ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels and the multilevel violation of international law’ Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 50 (2019) 333-376.
Tom Ruys, ‘The Meaning of “Armed Attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Nicaragua v United States’ (2010) 21(2) Leiden Journal of International Law 399.
Tony Marshall, Restorative Justice: An Overview (UK Home Office 1999).
Troy Lavers, 'Aggression, Intervention and Powerful States: Missed lessons from Feminist Methodologies on Peace and Security Issues' 5(2) Amsterdam Law Forum (2013) 122-138.
UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK Government Voluntary Report on Implementation of International Humanitarian Law at Domestic Level (London 2019)
UN Office of Counter-Terrorism, ‘The Challenge of Foreign Terrorist Fighters in Iraq and Syria’ (July 2018) <https://www.un.org/counterterrorism accessed 20 March 2025> accessed 20 March 2025.
Vasuki Nesiah, ‘Resistance in the Age of Empire: Occupied Discourse Pending Investigation’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 903.
Vaughan Lowe, A Very Short Introduction to International Law (OUP, 2015).
Vera Gowlland-Debbas (ed), United Nations Sanctions and International Law (Kluwer Law International, 2001).
William Plowright, Armed Groups and International Legitimacy: Child soldiers in intra-state conflict (Routledge 2021).
[1] Nussaibah Younis, Fundamentally (Orion Books 2025) 196.
[2] Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, arts 2(4), 39, 41, 42, and 51, Ch VII.
[3] Makau Mutua, ‘Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights’ Harvard International Law Journal 42 (2001) 201.
[4] UNSC Res 2170 (15 August 2014) UN Doc S/RES/2170.
[5] UNSC Res 2249 (20 November 2015) UN Doc S/RES/2249.
[6] Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005); Balakrishnan Rajagopal,International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance (Cambridge University Press 2003).
[7] Sundhya Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (Cambridge University Press 2011).
[8] Obiora Chinedu Okafor, ‘Critical Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL): Theory, Methodology, or Both?’ International Community Law Review 10 (2008) 371.
[9] Ikechi Mgbeoji, ‘The Civilised Self and the Barbaric Other: Imperial Delusions of Order and Challenges of Human Security’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 855.
[10] Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court (University of California Press 2024).
[11] Vasuki Nesiah, ‘Resistance in the Age of Empire: Occupied Discourse Pending Investigation’ Third World Quarterly 27(5) (2006) 903.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force (OUP 2018) 250.
[14] Julien Antouly and Rebecca Mignot-Mahdavi, ‘Thinking with IHL in contexts of counterterrorism: the case of criminal justice systems in the Sahel’ Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (2022).
[15] Sarah Nouwen, ‘Tensions between the Pursuit of Criminal Accountability and Other International Policy Agendas in Situations of Armed Conflict’ in Jennifer Welsh (ed.) et al, The Individualization of War: Rights, Liability, and Accountability in Contemporary Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press 2023) 187-219.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Lily Hamourtziadou, Body Count: The War on Terror and Civilian Deaths in Iraq (Bristol University Press 2021).
[18] Natasha Hall, ‘With the Fall of Assad, Can Syria Rise? Survival 67(1) (2025) 45–54.
[19] William Plowright, Armed groups and international legitimacy: Child soldiers in intra-state conflict (Routledge 2021).
[20] ‘On the 11th anniversary of the Syrian uprising, 90 percent live in poverty’ (Rudaw English, 14 March 2022) <https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/140320222> accessed 3 April 2025.
[21] Natasha Hall, ‘There’s Still a Chance to Get Syria Right’ (New York Times, 2 April 2025) <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/opinion/syria-war-humanitarian-aid.html> accessed 3 April 2025.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Hans-Joachim Heintze, ‘Die völkerrechtliche Pflicht Syriens, humanitäre Hilfe zu gestatten’, Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht: Festschrift für Rainer Hofmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Heidelberg 2023), 399-410.
[24] UNSC Res 2585 (9 July 2021) UN Doc S/RES/2585.
[25] Airwars, ‘At least 1,600 civilians died in US-led Coalition actions at Raqqa, major new study finds’ (Airwars, 25 April 2019) <https://airwars.org/news/raqqa-amnesty-airwars> accessed 3 April 2025.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Human Rights Watch, ‘Iraq: Civilian Casualties Mount in West Mosul’ (Human Rights Watch, 6 June 2017) < https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/07/iraq-civilian-casualties-mount-west-mosul> accessed 2 April 2025.
[28] Human Rights Watch, ‘Targeting Life in Raqqa: US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Syria’ (Human Rights Watch, 24 October 2017) https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/09/25/all-feasible-precautions/civilian-casualties-anti-isis-coalition-airstrikes-syria> accessed 2 April 2025.
[29] Rawan Shaif, ‘Syria’s Paper Trail of Atrocity Must Be Preserved’ (Foreign Policy, 17 December 2024) <https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/12/17/syria-assad-fall-prisons-documentation-records-sednaya> accessed 3 April 2025.
[30] UK Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 ss 8–10.
[31] International Criminal Court (ICC), ‘Situation in Iraq/UK - Final Report’ (9 December 2020) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf> accessed 3 April 2025.
[32] Bhupinder S. Chimni, ‘Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto’ International Community Law Review 8(1) (2006) 3.
[33] Elizabeth Stubbins Bates, ‘Strengthening UK military investigations into civilian harm: Towards compliance, mitigation and accountability’ Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights (November 2024); Roseanne Burke and Mark Lattimer, ‘Reparations for civilian harm from military operations’ Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights (December 2021); R v Philip Shiner (2024) Sentencing Remarks.
[34] Mohsen al Attar, ‘Tackling White Ignorance in International Law’ OpinioJuris (30 September 2022) <https://opiniojuris.org/2022/09/30/tackling-white-ignorance-in-international-law-how-much-time-do-you-have-its-not-enough> accessed 20 March 2025.
[35] Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘Why Should Muslims Abandon Jihad? Human Rights and the Future of International Law’ Third World Quarterly27(5) (2006) 785.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Shelley Wright, ‘The Horizon of Becoming: Culture, Gender and History after September 11’ Nordic Journal of International Law 71 (2002) 215.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ghuna Bdiwi, ‘Should we call for criminal accountability during ongoing conflicts?’ Journal of International Criminal Justice 21(4) (2023) 719-734.
[40] Ibid.
[41] UNSC Res 2254 (18 December 2015) UN Doc S/RES/2254.
[42] Alex Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect: A Defence (Oxford University Press 2014); Edward C. Luck, ‘The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade’ in Alex J Bellamy and Tim Dunne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect (Oxford University Press 2016).
[43] Mary Kaldor, Human Security (Polity Press 2007).
[44] Dapo Akande, ‘International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court’ (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 407.
[45] Tom Ruys and Luca Ferro, The enemy of my enemy: Dutch non-lethal assistance for ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels and the multilevel violation of international law’ Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 50 (2019) 333.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Younis, 196.
[48] Reuters, ‘Israeli Airstrikes Hit Syrian Military Sites in Damascus, Hama and Homs’ (2 April 2025) <https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-airstrike-targets-barzeh-neighborhood-syrias-damascus-state-news-agency-2025-04-02> accessed 3 April 2025.
