US Missile Strike Against Syria from the Perspective of the International Law

The US missile strike in Syria has raised various reactions internationally. US allies supported the attack. The opposition, however, has declared it to be contrary to the explicit principles of the United Nations Charter of International Law. The present study surveys how the US missile attack on Syria can be assessed in international law. Is the attack legitimate in international law? If it is legitimate, based on what theory is justifiable, and if it is not legitimate, what are the principles of international law? This article by the descriptive- analytical method, while mentioning the principles of non-intervention in state governance and not using the force, explains the latest developments in Humanitarian intervention in the form of Responsibility to protect theory, and surveys the legitimacy of the US missile strike against Syria in terms of these two theories. The results of the study indicate that the US missile strike in Syria is an explicit violation of the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries and the principle of not using the force. On the other hand, this action is justifiable in terms of neither Humanitarian intervention theory nor the Responsibility to protect theory; because interventions based on the two mentioned theories require the permission of the Security Council that the US government did not have it.