Timeline for How justified are the US strikes against the IRGC troops of Iran in Syria from the point of view of international law?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2023 at 15:27 | comment | added | David S | Just a reminder of context. International law is far more akin to guidelines than actual law. International law doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. It is all based on the consent of the regional powers. Additionally, there are no set consequences for breach of international law. The UN is not a governing body, they are a communication forum. Its designed to only be able to act when its unanimously agreed. | |
| Oct 31, 2023 at 11:45 | answer | added | C.F.G | timeline score: -2 | |
| Oct 31, 2023 at 6:17 | vote | accept | άνθρωπος | ||
| Nov 4, 2023 at 23:50 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2023 at 4:37 | history | edited | sfxedit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Grammar
|
| Oct 31, 2023 at 4:29 | answer | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | timeline score: 6 | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 21:41 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 3, 2023 at 3:50 | |||||
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:24 | vote | accept | άνθρωπος | ||
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:33 | |||||
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:22 | history | edited | άνθρωπος | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 168 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:21 | comment | added | bharring | It's referring to a large number of attacks since Oct 17 on US forces. It's claiming the attacks weren't very effective. For instance, while not inside those countries, a US ship spent something like 9 hours shooting down drones/missiles/rockets successfully. So the attacks are sustained, extensive, but allegedly mostly defeated. | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:19 | history | edited | άνθρωπος | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 168 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:19 | comment | added | άνθρωπος | @bharring something like this, and the defence should be justified too, and this does not clear: " and mostly unsuccessful attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed militia groups that began on October 17" what does it mean? | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:19 | comment | added | bharring | Added an answer, because the UN charter answers this question in plaintext. | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:17 | answer | added | bharring | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 17:10 | comment | added | bharring | In other words, do forces lose any right to self defense if there's any debate over whether their presence is legal? | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 16:16 | answer | added | Italian Philosopher | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 15:11 | history | edited | Rick Smith |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 30, 2023 at 14:52 | comment | added | άνθρωπος | @C.F.G yes, something like this. Are their actions legal or not if their status is indefinite in legal? | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 14:48 | comment | added | C.F.G | @StuartF: I assume that the OP means that while the US presence in Syria is essentially illegal, is their response justifiable under international conventions? | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 14:39 | comment | added | Stuart F | You ask why the US did the attack - the Pentagon press release you link sets out their rationale: "a response to a series of ongoing and mostly unsuccessful attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed militia groups". Do you not believe them? Do you have reason for believing there is some other explanation? Or do you just want more detail on the attacks the Pentagon mentions? | |
| Oct 30, 2023 at 14:31 | history | edited | άνθρωπος | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2023 at 14:19 | history | edited | άνθρωπος | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 30, 2023 at 13:47 | history | asked | άνθρωπος | CC BY-SA 4.0 |