Journal article

Publication year: 2024

Pages: 369-388

Volume number: 13

ISSN: 2524-6976

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42597-024-00125-2

Abstract: 

Several ad-hoc mechanisms were established for fact-finding and attributing responsibility for chemical weapons allegations in Syria. With distinctive mandates, these mechanisms adopted different working methods and applied varying standards of proof to achieve their objectives. This paper presents an analysis of the four main investigation mechanisms on alleged chemical weapons use in Syria, drawing on over forty relevant official reports, documents, and memos. The analysis entails juxtaposing the main attributes of these mechanisms: mandate, founding body, standards of proof, and adopted scientific and technical working methods. By doing so, the paper demonstrates the interdependency between the mechanisms and explains correlations between their constituting attributes. While attribution mechanisms apply a wider range of technologies and work methods, they did not consistently exhibit a higher standard of proof. This challenges the assumption that the mandate and technology use determine the applied standard of proof. Rather, the paper finds that the founding bodies have the most significant influence on standards of proof. United Nations-mandated mechanisms, for instance, employ a higher standard than those founded by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The paper discusses contributing factors to this finding including, political support, anticipated and granted levels of cooperation and access, and reporting of findings.

Harvard Citation style: Albalawi, A. and Burck, K. (2024) Chemical weapons investigation mechanisms in Syria: standards of proof and methods of work, ZeFKo Studies in Peace and Conflict, 13, pp. 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42597-024-00125-2

APA Citation style: Albalawi, A., & Burck, K. (2024). Chemical weapons investigation mechanisms in Syria: standards of proof and methods of work. ZeFKo Studies in Peace and Conflict. 13, 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42597-024-00125-2