A group of boys watch a group of activists sing and shout slogans against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in Raqqa province, eastern Syria, April 25, 2013.
Nour Kelze / Courtesy Reuters

There are two distinct conversations going on about the legitimacy of the West’s expected military campaign against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The first has to do with whether military action is an appropriate response to the wanton violation of a near-universally held norm -- in this case, the taboo against the use of chemical weapons, which the Assad regime allegedly violated last week. The second centers on whether military action is an appropriate means for protecting civilian populations from atrocities (of whatever kind) committed by their governments. These conversations, although often conflated, have very little to do with one another, since each policy goal as the goal of protecting civilians. It has more to do with protecting a set of shared international understandings about the proper conduct of warfare. If the goal were really to protect civilians, the West would have intervened long ago: bombs and guns have killed

This article is part of our premium archives.

To continue reading and get full access to our entire archive, you must subscribe.

Subscribe
  • CHARLI CARPENTER is Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at University of Massachusetts. She is the author of three books on the protection of civilians and teaches courses on human security and the rules of war. She blogs at Duck of Minerva.
  • More By Charli Carpenter