Brytpunkt: Ghouta? En idéanalys av USA och Rysslands argumentation före och efter kemvapenattacken i syriska Ghouta 2013

Sammanfattning: The following paper examines the arguments of two leading actors: USA and Russia with regards to military intervention in Syria before and after the chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburb Ghouta on August 21st, 2013. The purpose of the study is to identify if and in what ways the arguments changed after the attack and to identify which ideas regarding sovereignty dominated the actors’ argumentation. Statements from state officials are being analyzed and related to the traditional, realistic principle of Sovereignty on the one hand and the cosmopolitan Responsibility to Protect on the other. The study shows that before the chemical weapons attack both actors, who at that point were against a military intervention, primarily made arguments in terms of traditional state sovereignty. USA then switched positions after the attack, claiming cosmopolitan responsibilities and advocated military action for the sake of humanity. Russia maintained its position and continuously made realistic arguments as to how an intervention would violate international law and being counter-productive thus making things worse for the Syrian people.