Accessibility navigation

Legitimacy versus legality redux: arming the Syrian rebels

Schmitt, M. N. ORCID: (2014) Legitimacy versus legality redux: arming the Syrian rebels. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 7 (1). pp. 139-159. ISSN 1553-3158

[img] Text - Published Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Official URL:


This article examines the international law issues surrounding the US policy decision to arm Syrian rebels. Topics discussed as potential violations of international law include the prohibition on the use of force, the principle of non-intervention, Security Council action and State responsibility for any unlawful activities of the rebels. The Article also examines possible justifications for the action under international law including self-defense, military aid to a government, humanitarian intervention, an action against the enemy during an armed conflict, and the taking of countermeasures. The article concludes that arming the rebels is questionable as a matter of law, although it notes that it may be legitimate (it draws no conclusions on this latter point).

Item Type:Article
Divisions:No Reading authors. Back catalogue items
Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:89841
Publisher:University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, and the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT) of the Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs and College of Law of Syracuse University.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation