トランプ大統領のシリア爆撃は以前とケースと同様、違法だ、と人権団体
以前のケースについては、NYTの記事が参考になる。
Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?
No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country’s soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim.
In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as “intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again,” which is not self-defense.
Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?
Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful absent Security Council authorization.
Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?
The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack.
In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of “a ‘war’ in the constitutional sense,” as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti.
OMPHALOS
The Constitutionality of the Syria Strike Through the Eyes of OLC (and the Obama Administration)
By Jack Goldsmith Friday, April 7, 2017, 7:31 AM
The idea is that relatively short-term and small-scale operations abroad are not “war” and thus do not implicate the Declare War clause, but larger-scale, longer-term operations might be “war” and thus might implicate the clause.
国際法上武力行使が許されるのは、国連の安全保障理事会の承認があった場合か、自衛の場合。今回、国連の承認もなく、自衛のためとは言えない。
大量虐殺などあった場合、人道上の理由で許されると主張する法律家はいるものの、アメリカ政府は人道上の介入が正当化させる立場はとっていない。
国内法的にも、戦争するためには国会の承認が必要ということになっているが、承認はない。
ところが、この手の短期、小規模の攻撃は戦争に至らない攻撃として、国益がかかっている場合、米軍の最高司令官の権限でできるのだ、というのが、クリントンやオバマなどの歴代大統領の解釈なんだ、と。ーーマチスさんが、発表で憲法と国益を引用していたのはこれですね。
ーーーまあ、日本でも戦争を事変とか言い換えたり、軍隊を自衛隊とか言い換えたり、いろんな”工夫”をしていたわけですが、アメリカ”でも”同じようなことはやっているわけですね。
戦争開始要件
