Asli Bali

Professor Asli Bali from UCLA Law School provided an interesting insight into the Syria crisis and humanitarian intervention. The question about whether or not the United States has a moral obligation to intervene in affairs that do not directly affect it dates back to international laws created after World War II. For the most part, interference in other countries was strongly advised against in order to prevent future world wars. It was believed that if the US were to get involved, all its NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies would be forced to get involved as well. Thus, the use of force was only deemed lawful in cases of self-defense or through collective authorization by the United Nations.The problem now involves figuring out whether or not these conditions have been met. Even though the situation in Syria is considered a threat to international security, Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council has prevented the organization from being able to take any action.

During her lecture, Professor Asli Bali spoke of Security Council reform, arguing that change could only occur if the council got rid of—what she referred to as—Russia’s “illegitimate veto.” She also discussed the outcomes of UN intervention in Syria, and questioned how wise the decision would be. Even though the genocide of people is enough reason for the international community to get involved, this involvement might end up putting the country’s civilians in jeopardy. Sometimes, doing something is more harmful than doing nothing—even though the former option is “morally preferable.” In the end, the Syria problem is a complex one, and is not likely to be solved anytime soon.