Since March of 2011, ongoing conflict has left Syria in complete desolation. What first began as protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, has now turned into a gruesome war between the Syrian government, anti-government rebel groups, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The length and intensity of the conflict is defined by three different factors: putting an end to ISIL, combating violence between the Syrian government and rebel forces and managing external involvement. All three of these components have resulted in devastating consequences for the civilian population in Syria. Based on a United Nations report from 2019, over 400,000 people have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the war. In addition, the report states that approximately 6 million people are now internally displaced because of the war. These statistics also come with innumerable reports of gruesome human rights abuses coming at the hands of both ISIL and the Syrian government. Around 3.4 million Syrians have fled Syria in search of refuge in Europe and neighboring countries, taking with them horror stories of their own personal experiences in the war.
Throughout the course of the war, there have been an estimated 75,000 kidnappings by the Syrian Government. The regime has mainly targeted journalists, anti-government protesters, medical personnel and their families, as a way of eradicating opposition in the country. In addition to the forced disappearances, various other human rights violations have been committed, such as the use of chemical weapons like sarin and chlorine, systematic attacks on civilians, extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary arrests and widespread rape. Various human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, have reported that the Syrian government has systematically perpetrated various inhumane acts on civilian populations in places such as Damascus. In addition, other sources have reported that the government has utilized severe methods of torture on civilians suspected of being in the opposition, such as cutting off body parts, removing hair and nails, forcibly putting objects in the rectum or vagina and hyperextending the spine. The current situation of the crisis is that of substantial violence and instability. The United Nations has continued to report that systematic killings of civilians are occurring all around the country as government forces attempt to recapture opposition strongholds. Various accounts of chemical weapons, such as mustard gas being used on civilians continues to be publicized today. Throughout the war, the actions committed by the Syrian government have exemplified a an active killing of the Syrian people. As a result, the international community has begun to take steps towards holding the Syrian government and other war criminals accountable for the injustice and human rights abuses committed during the war. These actions by the Syrian government are criminal under certain legal standards that have been established through international treaties and conventions like the Geneva Convention of 1949. The international bodies that are responsible for prosecuting these crimes are international courts and intergovernmental organizations like the International Criminal Court. It is in the authority of these bodies to pursue justice and hold governments and actors accountable for the crimes they commit.
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the international tribunal is dedicated to prosecuting individuals accused of four core crimes: Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes and Crime of Aggression. When analyzing the Syrian Civil War, it can be argued that at least three out of these four core crimes have been committed, therefore warranting investigation and prosecution by the ICC. Firstly, any violations of the Geneva Convention of 1949, such as torture, inhumane killings, intentional attacks on civilians, and humanitarian assistance personnel are considered in violation of the Rome Statute. Based on the evidence collected by various human rights organizations and the personal accounts from victims of the war, the Syrian government has certainly violated various aspects of the 1949 Geneva Convention. Further examples of these violations are intentional mass killings of civilians in cities, such as Aleppo, and the evidence of extreme torture methods presented by Syrian refugees. In continuance with the Rome Statute, the Syrian government has violated multiple articles of the treaty, including Article 7, committing sexual violence, such as rape and sexual slavery, and intentional attacks on civilian populations, which is outlined in Article 8. Instances of these violations have been documented by the UN and other international agencies. An abundance of evidence has been brought from Syria which shows an overwhelming indication of severe physical, sexual and psychological abuse of many Syrian citizens. In 2013 alone, the UN treated over 38,000 victims of sexual violence in Syria and other neighboring countries where Syrian refugees were being cared for. These violations outwardly violate the ICC and various human rights treaties around the world.
Since 2016, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) has smuggled over 600,000 government documents out of Syria that tie the Syrian government under President Assad’s regime to various human rights abuses and war crimes. Although the evidence against the government and various Syrian officials is exorbitant, the jurisdiction and the legal abilities of agencies such as the CIJA and the ICC is limited and they often face too many obstacles to create concrete justice. An example of this difficulty includesSyria’s refusal to ratify the Rome Statute, which denies the ICC the necessary authority and jurisdiction to prosecute crimes within Syria. In addition, the ICC requires the cooperation of the Syrian government in order to progress with prosecution. However, the Syrian government has resisted such cooperation and is unlikely to cooperate in the near future.
In addition to the ICC and other international legal bodies, there are various other mechanisms for justice. It is useful to look upon other large-scale conflicts in history as legal precedents for the Syrian Civil War legal proceedings. For example, during the 2002 Sierra Leone Civil War, a hybrid court was established to prosecute war criminals, as their own domestic infrastructure, justice system and legal framework was not sufficient to prosecute crimes committed during the civil war. Although a hybrid court worked in Sierra Leone, this legal scenario would not be practical in terms of prosecutions for the Syrian Civil War because the Syrian government would not allow for a hybrid court and would resist the implementation of it.
One additional mechanism for prosecution is through ad hoc courts, which allow other states and bodies, such as the UN, to resolve and deal with the legal implications of conflict. Ad hoc courts were established in Tanzania after the Rwandan genocide and in the Hague as a result of the conflict in Yugoslavia. Although ad hoc courts were practical solutions for dealing with the consequences of various conflicts, it is unlikely that these types of legal justice would also work for the Syrian Civil War.
Both ad hoc courts and hybrid courts have played vital roles in pursuing legal repercussions for individuals and groups that contributed to other conflicts. These courts helped resolve conflicts in Cambodia, Sierra Leone and Lebanon. Although most conflicts that require these forms of ad hoc courts or hybrid tribunals, share similar characteristics of violence and brutality, all conflict differ and therefore there is now way to know if these legal mechanisms would also be successful in the Syrian Civil War. These forms of legal justice require substantial support from the international community but also the country itself where the conflict is occurring. For example, the reason why an ad hoc court was so successful after the Rwandan genocide, was that neighboring countries such as Tanzania supported and aided in these legal proceedings while also the Rwandan government cooperated. Legal mechanisms such as hybrid courts and ad hoc courts are very important in reconstructing post-war environments. In the case of Syria, the domestic cooperation required to implement successful ad hoc or hybrid courts, is very improbable of attaining. One of the only ways in which this could be a plausible solution for the current crisis in Syria is if there was a regime change in the Syrian government and the new government was more receptive and cooperative in attaining justice for the victims of this war. However, the mass amounts of destruction that have occurred during this war towards the infrastructure of the country makes it unlikely that even a new regime would be developed enough to positively engage with international courts.
Although many legal proceedings are unlikely to be implemented in the investigative and prosecution processes of the Syrian Civil War, there are various ways in which domestic courts in Europe and the US have attempted to seek retribution for the victims of the Syrian Civil War. So far, these domestic court cases have been the most successful legal avenues towards attaining justice. Various judicial proceedings in Europe and the US have made better progress in prosecuting war criminals and resemble long-term commitment to justice. The reason for this legal success is the wider jurisdiction that domestic courts have to prosecute individuals. As long as the country itself has been impacted by the conflict, such as through having to care for refugees, then domestic courts may have the necessary jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who contributed to the conflict. However, there are many limitations to this jurisdiction as many international legal bodies such as the ICC have struggled to gain jurisdiction and multilateral support for prosecuting war criminals from the Syrian Civil War.
Examples of domestic legal cases vary from prosecuting individuals, prosecuting companies and working with victims of the war itself. A more contemporary example of this kind of domestic legal proceedings is resembled in a current dispute between Japan and South Korea. Many South Korean citizens are pursuing legal action against various companies in Japan that forced South Korean citizens into labor during World War II. Victims of this forced labor are seeking financial compensation for the injustices they faced at the hands of many Japanese governments. When compared to the situation in Syria, there are many similarities in the way that people have chosen to attain justice which include the prosecution of contributors to the war. In 2014, the United States investigated and charged an Italian company for selling monitoring equipment from the US to Syrian government officials. This resulted in the company paying a large fine and being prevented from further selling materials to the Syrian government.In 2018, both Germany and France issued international arrest warrants for various high-ranking Syrian officials, such as the director of the Syrian Air Force, for committing various war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition, the German police force arrested two high-ranking members of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate in 2018 to be tried for their contributions to various crimes against humanity, such as torture. The US in compliance with the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act and along with other European states, have also imposed strict sanctions on Syria in order to prevent the rebuilding and development of Assad’s regime. This case represents the way in which states around the world have attempted to punish the Syrian government for its actions during the Syrian Civil War. Along with these accountability mechanisms, many states in Europe, especially those with large Syrian immigrant populations have filed claims on behalf of survivors as a first step towards justice. On February 19, 2018, various Swedish civil society organizations, helped nine Syrian torture survivors file criminal complaints against high-ranking Syrian officials. This was one of the first examples of a domestic government helping Syrian refugees become involved in legal proceedings against their perpetrators.
One of the most successful legal cases, Colvin V. Syrian Arab Republic, occurred in 2016 against the Assad regime, as complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Evidence in the case held the Assad regime liable for the extrajudicial killing of well-known war correspondent Marie Colvin. The case that was presented shows that high-ranking officials in the Syrian government planned an artillery assault on the Baba Amr Media Center with the intention of killing journalists. The legal complaints were filed under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which is a law that permits victims such as Marie Colvin’s family, to sue state-sponsors of terrorism for the extrajudicial killing of US citizens. The Syrian government never responded to the claims which led the US District Court of the District of Columbia to release a default judgement which found the Syrian government liable for the killing of Marie Colvin. The outcome of this judgement was a financial penalty in the amount of $302 million in which the Syrian government has to pay. Although many of these cases are basic legal steps, they represent the determination of both the survivors and the international community to seek retribution and justice for all of the crimes committed during this gruesome war.
Given the overall inability for the ICC and other international courts to legally hold Syrian Civil War criminals accountable, it is within the best interest for victims to pursue justice through domestic courts. Considering that many countries around the world, especially those in Europe, have been greatly impacted by the Syrian Civil War, they too have a desire to prosecute the individuals responsible for these crimes. Pursuing justice is an important component of rebuilding peace and social cohesion in Syria. Using legal means in order to pursue this justice may be the most effective way to repair the deep rooted consequences that stem from conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War.