'There was no alternative': Government insists Syrian air strikes were 'necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable' - but Corbyn insists action was 'questionable' and repeats call for UN investigation into chemical atrocity

The government said the Assad regime has a history of using chemical weapons

Syrian government has failed to stick to its commitment to get rid of them 

Efforts to deal with the issue via UN have been blocked by Syrian and its allies 

Government said there was no alternative means of alleviating human suffering

The government has the air strikes carried out against the Syrian regime were legal given that there was no alternative means of protecting civilians from further chemical attack.

Setting out the legal basis for military action it said UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering.

The government's position was laid out after Jeremy Corbyn branded the UK's airstrikes on the Syrian regime 'legally questionable'. 

The Labour leader risked opening a fresh schism with his own MPs by repeatedly declining to say that evidence implicated the Russian-backed Assad regime

For there to be a legal basis for the use of force in humanitarian intervention, three conditions must be met, the Government said.

The first condition is that ‘there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief’.

Secondly it must ‘be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved’.

The third condition is ‘the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim’. 

In the document, the government says that the he Syrian regime has been using chemical weapons since 2013 and an attack in Eastern Damascus on August that year left over 800 people dead.

The regime failed to implement its 2013 commitment in 2013 to ensure the destruction of its chemical weapons and went on to commit more atrocities, it states.

A chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017 killed approximately 80 people and left hundreds more injured and the recent attack in Douma has killed up to 75 people.

‘The repeated, lethal use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity,’ says the government.

The Labour leader was speaking on a visit to Huddersfield. He said he conveyed his concerns about the legality of the air strikes to the Prime Minister in a telephone conversation

In the document, the government says the Syrian regime has been using chemical weapons since 2013 and an attack in Eastern Damascus on August that year left over 800 people dead.

The regime failed to implement its 2013 commitment to ensure the destruction of its chemical weapons and went on to commit more atrocities, it states.

A chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017 killed approximately 80 people and left hundreds more injured and the recent attack in Douma has killed up to 75 people.

‘The repeated, lethal use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity,’ says the government.

‘On the basis of what we know about the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons to date, it was highly likely that the regime would seek to use chemical weapons again, leading to further suffering and loss of civilian life as well as the continued displacement of the civilian population.’

Mr Corbyn said more effort needs to be made to secure a ceasefire in Syria +9
Mr Corbyn said more effort needs to be made to secure a ceasefire in Syria 

The government said efforts to alleviate the suffering caused by the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons at the UN Security Council have been repeatedly blocked by the regime and its allies.

Neither previous military action nor diplomatic efforts have sufficiently degraded Syrian chemical weapons capability.

It has not deterred the regime from causing extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale through its persistent use of chemical weapons, said the government.

‘There was no practicable alternative to the truly exceptional use of force to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their further use by the Syrian regime in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering,’ it concluded. 

The Labour leader condemned the reprisals carried out by RAF jets alongside the US and France in the wake of chemical weapons being deployed by Bashar Assad.

Four RAF Tornados took off from Cyprus in the early hours and struck regime facilities linked to the production and use of chemical weapons. 

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that Storm Shadow cruise missiles were fired at a former missile base fifteen miles west of Homs, where stockpiles of banned substances are believed to have been held. 

In the aftermath of the strike, Corbyn repeated his call for a UN investigation into the atrocity - even though Assad's Russian allies have already vetoed the prospect.

In a statement, Mr Corbyn said: 'Bombs won't save lives or bring about peace. 

'This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely.

'Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm's way.

'Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. 

'The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend's horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account.' 

Mr Corbyn said there was only a legal basis for action if there was a direct threat to the UK.He said: 'You could only do it under the basis of self-defence - if there was a direct threat to us, and there wasn't.'

During a visit to Huddersfield, Jeremy Corbyn said: 'I had a late night conversation with the Prime Minister and my whole point is that Parliament should be consulted, parliament should be allowed to take a view on this but, instead, the strikes were launched last night.

'Parliament is in session on Monday. She could have come to Parliament on Monday to discuss the whole situation. Instead, they've launched these strikes.

'She claims there's a legal basis for it. I've asked her in a letter I've just to sent her this morning to publish in full the legal basis and justification for it.'

The Labour leader also called on the Prime Minister to UN secretary general of Antonio Guterres -'who wanted the strikes to be stopped, who wanted the UN charter to be observed, and give time for the OPCW to do its inspection of chemical weapons in Syria.

'And, also, to work again to get a ceasefire in Syria so that no more people are killed in this ghastly civil war in Syria.

'We'll be pushing for publication of the legal advice that the government has given.

'We will be demanding that the government goes back to the United Nations with the support of the Swedish government, or in support of the Swedish government in order the get a new UN resolution and bring Russia and the United States together along with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey - all the neighbouring states there. 

+9

Fighter jet landing at Akrotiri military British Royal Air Force Base, Cyprus following strikes on Syrian chemical weapons bases

'This civil war is ghastly. It's killed hundreds of thousands. It's driven millions into refuge in other countries and the chemical weapons are obviously appalling and disgusting and completely illegal within international law.'

The gloval chemical warfare watchdog group, the OPCW, said it will continue its investigations even after the US led airstrikes.

The OPCW said in a statement it would 'continue its deployment to the Syrian Arab Republic to establish facts around the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma'.  

And this morning, Downing Street said it will release a summary of the legal advice it received about the strikes later on Saturday.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said the missions had been 'highly successful' and degraded Assad's ability to repeat the chemical outrage. The jets all returned safely.

But Mrs May is facing a backlash after defying calls from Opposition parties and some Tories to stage a parliamentary vote before sending UK forces into combat.   

Mr Corbyn has risked opening a fresh schism with his own MPs by repeatedly declining to say the evidence implicates the Russian-backed Assad regime.

Asked last night about the Kremlin's outlandish claims about the attack being staged by rebels Mr Corbyn would not dismiss the idea outright. 

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Syria's use of chemical weapons could not be tolerated but questioned whether the strikes would halt their use or contribute to ending the civil war.

'This action risks not just further escalating the civil war in Syria but also a dangerous escalation of international tensions,' said the leader of the left-wing Scottish National Party, the third-biggest force in the British parliament.

'There must be urgent confirmation from the prime minister that there will be no further action... without a full parliamentary debate.'

The Labour leader's response has been condemned by some fellow MPs, who claimed Corbyn could not be trusted with national security.

Some MPs criticised Mr Corbyn's response while others came to his defence and said the Prime Minister should have held a parliamentary vote before launching airstrikes Conservative MP Nick Boles tweeted: 'Yet again Jeremy Corbyn wants to give Vladimir Putin the benefit of the doubt. When push comes to shove he cannot be trusted to protect our security or defend Britain's national interest.

'Constitutionally there is no requirement for Parliamentary authorisation. Military action is a prerogative power exercised by the PM. Role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account.' 

'Politically we should distinguish between 1) military action to defend our national security and protect vital national interests like the international ban on chemical weapons, and 2) military intervention in pursuit of regime change or 'wars of choice'.' 

Ben Wallace MP said: 'Corbyn, Abbott and Labour should reflect that this action in Syria took place because the first time Assad gassed his own people they voted to do nothing. So he did it again..and again. Yet still Corbyn would do nothing...' 

Nadine Dorries, another Tory MP, tweeted: 'Corbyn now just a purveyor of propaganda and fake news Action was taken in coalition with France, too. President Macron said there was 'proof' that 'at least chlorine' had been used by the Assad regime. 'At least'. Corbyn is grossly irresponsible and wholly unsuited to his position.'

Jamie Reed, a former Labour MP who resigned in 2017, said: 'The PM didn't require a parliamentary vote for this action. She has acted properly and constitutionally. To suggest otherwise is just factually wrong.'

Labour's Mike Japes, MP for Ilford South, also supported Mrs May, saying Mr Macron had set out clearly why action was necessary. 

+9

Britain, the US and France last night unleashed a salvo of cruise missiles against Syrian regime forces. In a statement, the PM said the decision was one she had not taken lightly and was done in the national interest. Four RAF Tornados took off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus in the early hours and struck regime facilities linked to the production and use of chemical weapons

But some Labour MPs came to Mr Corbyn's defence, with David Lammy saying: 'PM is wrong to take military action in Syria without any recourse to Parliament. I have serious reservations - why was the PM not prepared to listen to all sides? Why has the PM sidelined Parliament and instead taken orders directly from Donald Trump?'

Emma Lewell-Buck said: 'Theresa May had no right to launch these attacks without any cohesive or strategic plan to bring peace in Syria or stop the use of chemical weapons. 

'In matters of such great importance and in the face of public opposition a parliamentary debate and vote was vital.' 

Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said: 'As an elected representative of the people of Ashton Under Lyne I was frozen out of the decision our PM has made to bomb Syria. 

'I am still concerned as to how our action will stop the use of chemical weapons and bring peace.' 

Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner said the UK 'should not be associated with Trump' and suggested the PM feared losing a vote in the Commons. 

'Many, like me, are not convinced that the world is a safer place this morning. PM has acted knowing that she does not have public support and that she would be unable to convince Parliament,' she said. 

And Clive Lewis MP suggested the lessons of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War had not been heeded, saying not having a Commons vote 'makes a mockery of the notion of parliamentary democracy.' 

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leaders, added their voices to the criticism.

'The Prime Minister has trampled over parliamentary democracy by ordering these airstrikes without a debate and vote,' she said.

'Not only are these strikes likely to be ineffective in terms of deterring Assad, but they also risk further escalating an already deadly situation.

'For these attacks to have happened before OPCW inspectors have even been able to investigate the site is also deeply concerning.

'We should be cracking down on Russia through further sanctions and pursuing diplomatic channels - not rushing into bombing missions alongside a trigger happy US President.

'And Britain urgently needs to get its own house in order if we want to be a positive influence on the world stage. That means ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia, standing up to the aggression of the Israeli Government and playing our part as a nation of peace building.

'Theresa May must now bring a debate and vote to Parliament on Monday - and give MPs an unwhipped say on these strikes.'

The government's complete legal justification in full

1This is the Government’s position on the legality of UK military action to alleviate the extreme humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their further use, following the chemical weapons attack in Douma on 7 April 2018.

2.The Syrian regime has been killing its own people for seven years. Its use of chemical weapons, which has exacerbated the human suffering, is a serious crime of international concern, as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity.

3.The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

4.The UK considers that military action met the requirements of humanitarian intervention in the circumstances of the present case:

(i) The Syrian regime has been using chemical weapons since 2013. The attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013 left over 800 people dead. The Syrian regime failed to implement its commitment in 2013 to ensure the destruction of its chemical weapons capability. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017 killed approximately 80 people and left hundreds more injured. 

The recent attack in Douma has killed up to 75 people, and injured over 500 people. Over 400,000 people have now died over the course of the conflict in Syria, the vast majority civilians. Over half of the Syrian population has been displaced, with over 13 million people in need of humanitarian assistance.

The repeated, lethal use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity. On the basis of what we know about the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons to date, it was highly likely that the regime would seek to use chemical weapons again, leading to further suffering and loss of civilian life as well as the continued displacement of the civilian population.

(ii) Actions by the UK and its international partners to alleviate the humanitarian suffering caused by the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime at the UN Security Council have been repeatedly blocked by the regime’s and its allies’ disregard for international norms, including the international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

This last week, Russia vetoed yet another resolution in the Security Council, thwarting the establishment of an impartial investigative mechanism. Since 2013, neither diplomatic action, tough sanctions, nor the US strikes against the Shayrat airbase in April 2017 have sufficiently degraded Syrian chemical weapons capability or deterred the Syrian regime from causing extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale through its persistent use of chemical weapons. 

There was no practicable alternative to the truly exceptional use of force to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their further use by the Syrian regime in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering.

(iii) In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike carefully considered, specifically identified targets in order effectively to alleviate humanitarian distress by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring further chemical weapons attacks was necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable. 

Such an intervention was directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and the action was the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.