Not much has been said about the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P) in regards to Syria, though it was mentioned repeatedly in regards to 2011's intervention in Libya. The doctrine outlines additional reasons why one nation may claim the right to intervene in the affairs of another. These all focus on preventing violence against one set of people by others within a nation, and it includes preventing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The use is chemical weapons qualifies as a reason, so it applies to the current conflict, though Obama has apparently downplayed its applicability. Its probably wise to focus on the argument that the US has self-interested reasons for going forward. R2P is not very popular politically.
Click here for a bit of history on the doctrine, it developed after the international failure to intervene in the massacre in Rwanda in the early 1990s.
Some more background below:
- responsibilitytoprotect.org.
- The UN.
- The Washington Post.
These doctrines tend to evolve over time, based on the circumstances of the moment. Wikipedia has a page that lists a variety of doctrines used to justify military intervention over time. Its not a bad idea to peruse through a few. It provides an interesting look at the evolution of American foreign policy over time.
- 1823: Monroe Doctrine
- 1842: Tyler Doctrine
- 1932: Stimson Doctrine
- 1947: Truman Doctrine
- 1957: Eisenhower Doctrine
- 1961: Kennedy Doctrine
- 1965: Johnson Doctrine
- 1969: Nixon Doctrine
- 1980: Carter Doctrine
- 1981: Kirkpatrick Doctrine
- 1984: Weinberger Doctrine
- 1985: Reagan Doctrine
- 1990: Powell Doctrine
- 1999: Clinton Doctrine
- 2002: Bush Doctrine
- 2002: Rumsfeld Doctrine
