The Unraveling of Canada's Legal Justification for Force in Syria? The Trouble with "Unwilling and Unable"
As summarized by Jennifer Daskal over at Just Security:
U.S.-led forces hit a convoy carrying pro-Syrian government forces advancing inside a deconfliction zone inside Syria. The convoy was reportedly traveling toward the al-Tanf military base used by U.S. coalition forces to train anti-ISIS fighters. U.S. and coalition officials assert that the Russians “apparently” attempted to dissuade the convoy from entering the area, that they first fired warning shots and deployed two US aircraft as a show of force, and only struck the convoy after it failed to heed the warning, as a means of protecting U.S. and coalition forces.
Jennifer Daskal also reports US official statements that the “strike was a proportionate response done for purposes of force protection—an act of self-defense in an effort to protect U.S. forces.” She observes: “This is, on its face, quite plausible. And, if accurate, lawful as a matter of both international and domestic law.”
Daskal, Jennifer C. and Forcese, Craig, "The Unraveling of Canada's Legal Justification for Force in Syria? The Trouble with "Unwilling and Unable"" (2017). Popular Media. 468.