Modeling equality for Syrian justice
Since 1990, the total number of armed conflicts worldwide has seldom dropped below a hundred. The world’s desire to prosecute those who start wars or commit war crimes, meanwhile, has grown. Last year alone, the number of cases brought before national courts for international crimes rose by 33%, according to an annual survey published in April.
Now the boundaries of such accountability face a new test. On Wednesday, the Paris Court of Appeal heard arguments challenging a warrant for the arrest of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for war crimes. The case has broad ramifications for the principle of universal jurisdiction, or the idea that a country can prosecute war crimes committed outside its borders.
“Heads of State have been understood to be immune before foreign domestic courts,” a grouping of Syrian and international rights organizations wrote in a letter to the Paris court last week. “Ongoing impunity ... only serves to perpetuate the cycle of violence and suffering for victims and survivors. It undermines the international rule of law.”
When democratic societies prosecute war crimes, they set foundations for reconciliation by listening to victims. Perhaps more importantly, for societies resigned to injustice, they model the principle of equality before the law.
Since 1990, the total number of armed conflicts worldwide has seldom dropped below a hundred. The world’s desire to prosecute those who start wars or commit war crimes, meanwhile, has grown. Last year alone, the number of cases brought before national courts for international crimes rose by 33%, according to an annual survey published in April.
Now the boundaries of such accountability face a new test. On Wednesday, the Paris Court of Appeal heard arguments concerning a French arrest warrant for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for war crimes. The case has broad ramifications for the principle of universal jurisdiction, or the idea that a country can prosecute war crimes committed outside its borders. No sitting head of state has ever faced charges in a foreign domestic court. A decision in Paris affirming equality before the law would mark a turning point in international justice.
For societies resigned to injustice, the debate alone matters.
“Heads of State have been understood to be immune before foreign domestic courts,” a grouping of Syrian and international rights organizations wrote in a letter to the Paris court last week. “Ongoing impunity ... only serves to perpetuate the cycle of violence and suffering for victims and survivors. It undermines the international rule of law.”
Dozens of prosecutions are underway in 13 countries involving individuals accused of crimes against humanity in 35 different states, according to the 2024 Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review. Charges include genocide, sexual violence, and financing of terrorism. Sixteen people were convicted last year outside their country of citizenship, all in European domestic courts.
In Syria, a brutal crackdown of peaceful protests in 2011 sparked a civil war that the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates has killed more than 500,000 people. Nearly 17 million need humanitarian assistance, the United Nations counts. More than 7 million are displaced.
A lower French court issued arrest warrants last November against Mr. Assad, his brother, and two generals for attacks against civilians involving chemical weapons in 2013. They represent four of 49 cases underway in nine European jurisdictions against Syrian nationals. Switzerland announced in March it would try one of Mr. Assad’s uncles. Courts in Germany and the Netherlands have already convicted lower-ranking Syrian officials.
In seeking clarity on the Assad warrant, French prosecutors have effectively asked the Paris court to establish a new benchmark for international law beyond the immediate case. “The issuance of this warrant raises a fundamental legal question about the immunity rationale enjoyed by heads of state,” they stated.
Their intention “to see this question decided by a higher court” underscores a core ideal of universal jurisdiction. When democratic societies prosecute war crimes, they set foundations for reconciliation by listening to victims and drawing on the investigative work of local civil society organizations. Perhaps more importantly, they uphold human dignity by modeling the principle of equality before the law.
