While the legal proceedings against the Syrian regime may not yield immediate justice for its victims, they will disrupt efforts to rehabilitate it. Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President, has largely evaded accountability for the numerous atrocities committed by his regime against civilians, instead focusing on reconciling with global leaders.
Since the eruption of the Syrian civil war in 2011, virtually every human rights violation and international crime outlined in international law has been perpetrated, often repeatedly. Initially garnering global attention, the plight of civilians fleeing Syria has gradually faded from focus in recent years, resulting in fleeting accountability for the atrocities committed.
Efforts to allow the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the atrocities in Syria have been obstructed by China, Russia, and initially, the United States. Despite European states prosecuting Syrian war criminals in their own courts, such actions are insufficient to address the widespread and systematic nature of the atrocities. Canada has notably refrained from similar prosecutions, even neglecting to prosecute its citizens who joined the Islamic State in Syria.
The recent announcement that Canada and the Netherlands have initiated legal proceedings against Syria at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is significant. Seeking to hold Damascus accountable under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Canada aims to address the numerous human rights violations inflicted on the Syrian people since 2011.
Although these legal proceedings may not directly lead to Assad facing an international tribunal for atrocity crimes, they signify an attempt to compel Syria to adhere to international law regarding torture. Canada and the Netherlands seek ICJ orders to uphold the rights of Syrian civilians under the Convention against Torture, aiming to protect individuals from torture and other forms of cruel treatment.
Damascus’ response to these proceedings remains uncertain; it may either ignore them entirely or participate in an effort to present its position. Regardless, the move by Canada and the Netherlands carries symbolic significance, emphasizing their support for the victims and survivors of the Assad regime’s violence. Amid global attention on other crises, such as the situation in Ukraine, this ICJ case underscores their commitment to pursuing justice for atrocities in Syria.
Despite Assad’s apparent victory in the Syrian war and the normalization of relations with Damascus by several states, the ICJ proceedings could hinder his political rehabilitation. By bringing Syria to the ICJ over its torture campaign, Canada and the Netherlands challenge the legitimacy of engaging with Assad’s regime. This move forces proponents of such engagement to justify their actions in light of Assad’s leadership of a state accused of mass torture, sending a clear message that atrocities will not be forgotten.
The Dutch and Canadian initiative at the ICJ ensures that Assad remains under scrutiny for alleged atrocities, keeping the plight of Syria’s victims and survivors relevant in both public discourse and the international legal arena. While achieving accountability is a slow and arduous process, efforts like those of Canada and the Netherlands offer hope that one day, justice for Syria may transition from an elusive dream to a tangible reality.
