2018/01/01 by Reinoud Leenders, Kholoud Mansour · 24 citations
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Authoritarianism #Charter #Democracy #Global Peace and Security Dynamics #Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics #Law #Legitimacy #Middle East Politics and Society #Neutrality #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Sociology #Sovereignty #State (computer science) #Transparency (behavior)
paper · open access · doi:10.1002/polq.12773
published in Political Science Quarterly 133(2), 225-257 (Oxford University Press)
openalex publication_date 2018/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/25
ON 22 FEBRUARY 2014, THE UNITED NATIONS Security Council (UNSC) adopted a sharply worded resolution on the Syrian crisis. Resolution 2139 called on all parties in the conflict to allow humanitarian workers to do their work while strongly condemning those who failed to observe this imperative, foremost the Syrian government. Yet Syrian president Bashar al-Assad responded with glee and confidently stated that the resolution must be implemented “with respect for the principles laid out in the UN charter, international law and the basic foundations of humanitarian work, especially state sovereignty and the role of the state, and principles of neutrality, transparency and non-politicized assistance.”1 At first glance, Assad’s remarks could be taken as grossly out of touch with reality, as proof—if any additional proof were needed—of the regime’s disingenuousness, and as yet another instance of its coating itself in the formulaic pomp so typical of a stiffly authoritarian regime clinging to an image of reasonableness when its legitimacy has long evaporated. Responding to another such speech that Assad gave in Damascus’s opera house a year earlier, Rami Khoury, a Beirut-based commentator, captured this common perspective by saying, “It was operatic in its otherworldly fantasy, unrelated to realities outside the building.”2