Graham Colley questions interpretation of UN Resolution 2249 (2015)

The specific paragraph the Government is relying upon in UN Resolution 2249 (2015) is para no. 5

The Security Council.. " Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da'esh...."

One must ask if a decision to bomb Syria constitutes "all necessary measures". Bombing is only one measure. "All necessary measures" must constitute a full plan to deal with ISIL, which bombing, alone, is not. In particular, there must be a conclusion/exit strategy, which, at moment, is missing.

In preparing a strategy, "All" must also include satisfactory consideration of and adequate responses to the concerns expressed. These include the five conditions that Tim Farron set out and which remain unanswered:

In addition, it is difficult to see how "bombing" complies with the requirement in the preamble of the Resolution (repeated in clause 5):

  "Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law".

Bombing, without other necessary measures, can only create more refugees, and affect the human rights of civilians (right to life) and threaten the protection of non-combatants (humanitarian law).

If HMG wishes to rely on UN Resolution 2249 (2015), it should ensure that it has regard for the Resolution as a whole and, in particular, fully considers and implements its preconditions.

Graham Colley  01/12/2015