Legal News

The Hoax Entitled to IHRL Violations in Syria and the Hope Undrained


follow us on twitter



Written By: Abhivardhan


Syria has been the real observant of one of the biggest severe crises in the International Community. The 7-year long war-torn crisis has to lead the International Community to the only lament and worsen the circumstantial failures, which in the end gave a shameful position to ponder upon the realities of diplomatic courtesy. The diplomatic bias enthralled by the Russian Federation, China, and the United States has only made Syria a buffer point of conflict in the vicinity of the Turkish trafficking monopoly and a major web of sectarian, ethnic and religious adversities, which has confused the International Community to take any steps as such. The best example of the fate of political and legal concerns arisen from the Security Council. The United Nations has been the true actor to solve the Syrian Crisis. However, its efforts go in vain by the political and legal ambiguity that Russia, Syria, US, Iran, and Turkey including China have been purposely been doing. This amounts towards a mere hoax, systemizing the wake of hegemonic disbalances, which had affected the future of Middle East. Still, the change in the diplomatic neutrality is indeed a point of the utmost question, which can be dealt with hope. It is all about the ambiguous subjectivity, which has confused. The author tries to bring the essential focus per se and enhances the spectra of efforts that can still change the plethora of adversities due to this hoax created.


Human right violations have always been conducive to the thought of concern, which is an utmost need. Syria has obviously been the basic observant of it. However, this has now become the seemed observation that the dynamics of IHRL violations in Syria pertaining to children and other aggrieved people have now turned out to be a mere hoax. The reason is not single: it is comprised of many contingencies and conditional responsibilities, which has only let the crisis become a mere game to sensitize the international community for its sympathies and courtesies. UN human rights commissioner Zeid Raad Al Hussein has also joined calls for an end to the conflict in the region. “How much cruelty will it take before the international community can… take resolute, concerted action to bring this monstrous campaign of annihilation to an end?” he said in a statement.[1] Well, this statement itself shows a mark of shame and irrelevant considerations approached by the states, which itself ascribes nothing in the end. The UN says at least 346 civilians have been killed and 878 have been injured, mostly in airstrikes.[2] However, the case is actually, again not of the violations. Why? The violations itself ascribe a mere perversion of the principles of justice and concern.

The IHRL Violations in Syria: An Evolution Derived

Syria has been in the vicinity of adverse human right violations. More than 400,000 have died because of the Syrian conflict since 2011, according to the World Bank, with 5 million people seeking refuge abroad and over 6 million displaced internally, according to United Nations agencies. By June 2017, the UN also estimated that 540,000 people were still living in besieged areas.[3] The Syrian government has launched numerous chemical weapons attacks on civilians in opposition-held areas. With Russia and Iran’s support, the Syrian government has conducted deliberate and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, withheld humanitarian aid, employed starvation as a war tactic, and forcibly displaced Syrians in contravention of international law. The Syrian government’s practices of torture and ill-treatment in detention and enforced disappearances continue.[4] The contingencies arising are the same, where we see the so-called appeal from the East Bloc to show the attributed concern of action towards the so-called crisis when it is of no need. While accountability efforts remained blocked at the Security Council, the UN General Assembly established in December 2016 a mechanism to assist in the investigation of serious crimes, preserve evidence, and prepare cases for future criminal proceedings[5]. Still, this isn’t that matter. We know and question this always why the accountability is in a big danger. Actually, this is the set of ambiguities that have threatened the International Community towards this situational tension that has arisen thoroughly, giving no perfect solution to the Middle Easterners. In March, a US warplane struck a mosque in al-Jinnah village in Aleppo killing at least 38 people. The US said it struck a meeting of Al-Qaeda members but local residents said that the victims were all civilians attending evening prayers. Statements by US military after the attack indicate they failed to understand the targeted building was a mosque, that prayer was about to begin, and that a religious lecture was taking place at the time of the attack. The United States conducted an investigation into the airstrike, and found it legal, though it failed to clarify the factors that led to that determination or consult external actors. The UN Commission of Inquiry found the strike was unlawful as US forces failed to take all feasible precautions to minimize loss of civilian life. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitoring group, around 1,100 civilians died in airstrikes launched by coalition planes since the campaign to retake the city of Raqqa began.[6]

So, in short, it seems that there is no hope. However, this mustn’t be assumed always because the International Community is always consistent with the intrinsic mootness that has made it up into the better to expect.

Thus, we can still hope for a solution in Syria, but yes, we must understand that we should not distract our attention from the diplomatic responsibility and state interventions towards the effects that we have been seeing and lamenting on them. Thus, we should understand how the IHRL have become a hoax and what is the least hope, which would not be at least as the word seems to indicate subjectively via the article.

The Russian Fear towards a Hegemonic Setback: Leading to IHRL Violations in Syria

Well, it is as obvious to consider that the Russian Federation has been actively supporting the concerns of Assad, which itself makes us question. The battle for human rights is never decisively won in any place or at any point in time. The frontiers shift continually, so there can never be room for complacency. In the history of human rights, this has perhaps never been clearer. Yet, faced with unprecedented challenges across the world, people have shown repeatedly that their thirst for justice, dignity and equality will not be extinguished; they continue to find new and old ways of expressing this, while often paying a heavy price.[7] Russia developed a fear of its own concern and became a severe part of the chain of IHRL violations. It sought its own concerning message to the West that it demanded a hegemonic value. Otherwise, the mere formation of the Counter Security Treaty Organisation, which indeed is not as viable strong as the NATO is, signifies that Moscow has actually nothing to do with this crisis but intends to involve itself for its own attributions that it wishes to fix. Legally, it is a hoax and so in the eyes of human rights, this is not done. Still, it is a tactful federalism that has been made and devised, which must be questioned in the end. Henceforth, as we consider what the polarization we can seek in Palestine concerning Arabs and Jews, all what is present is that Israel is supported by the Islamophobic Trump, where the Palestinians are supported by the Russians akin the same case with the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885, when Austria supported the Serbs and the Russians did so for Bulgaria without any objective reason. The matter of subjective influence, effect or consequence may affect the direction of the International Community. That is why the Security Council is never termed as a failed body in the UN. It is both a political and a legal body. Russia has often reflected its fear in UNSC pertaining to Syria. Its unusual vetoes when required do not repeat when actually we see that in the recent UNSC resolution adopted pertaining to Syria, which calls upon all parties to immediately lift the sieges of populated areas, including in Eastern Ghouta, Yarmouk, Foua and Kefraya, and demands that all parties allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance, including medical assistance, cease depriving civilians of food and medicine indispensable to their survival, and enable the rapid, safe and unhindered evacuation of all civilians who wish to leave, and underscores the need for the parties to agree on humanitarian pauses, days of tranquillity, localized ceasefires and truces to allow humanitarian agencies safe and unhindered access to all affected areas in Syria, recalling that starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited by international humanitarian law[8]. Hence, this is actually not understandable when Mr. Putin made the claims as he laid out his key policies for a fourth presidential term, ahead of an election he is expected to win in 17 days’ time. The weapons he boasted of included a cruise missile that he said could “reach anywhere in the world”. He said of the West: “They need to take account of a new reality and understand … [this]… is not a bluff.”[9] This is nothing but to show a matter of relevance. Even it can be stated that there may occur a cold war. However, IR is not going to be that traditionally utilized as in case of North Korea, India, and other nations. Moreover, a cold war is merely a variable process of war; it is really not possible to do so. Let us acknowledge that for first. So, is the case in Syria.


[1] (February 22, 2018). Syria war: UN plea to end ‘hell on earth’ Eastern Ghouta crisis. Retrieved February 28, 2018 from

[2] Ibid.

[3] Human Rights Watch (2018). World Report 2018. Retrieved February 28 from, p. 525.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid 4.

[6] Ibid 4, p. 530.

[7] Amnesty International Report 2017/2018. Retrieved February 28, 2018 from

[8] S/RES/2401 (2018).

[9] BBC (March 1, 2018). Russia’s Putin unveils ‘invincible’ nuclear weapons. Retrieved March 3, 2018 from


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *