International Law and the Application of the "Unwilling or Unable State" Test in the Syrian Conflict

The concept of "unwilling or unable state" was recently introduced in the discourse of international law and international relations. In fact, the revival of this concept is due to the increasing attacks and threats of non-governmental actors in the sovereign realm of governments, and in contrast, some of these governments are incapable of preventing or deterring the activities of terrorist groups. There are shortcomings and ambiguities in the scope of this criterion, which in turn can impose great costs on international peace and security. This paper intends to define the criterion of reluctance or inability by providing a precise framework, and then critically examines the obstacles to the acceptance of this criterion, and in particular the US interpretation of the use of force in the Syrian conflict. It is argued that this criterion does not apply in the case of Syria because existing international law does not allow for legitimate defense outside the domestic territory, where the host government is reluctant or incapable of dealing with non-state actors Unless expressly authorized by the Security Council or approved by the host Government. Nor has a customary norm been established in this regard.