This Paper contends that without accountability for the atrocity crimes committed by the Assad regime, there is no chance that the Syrian people will experience an enduring peace. And when it comes to sequencing justice and peace, justice must—at least as it pertains to Syria—be underway in some manner before a transitional peace process is implemented. In support of this theory, this Paper argues that a resurrection and fresh interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 377(V)—the Uniting for Peace Resolution—can best-serve as an avenue for international law to prevail over international politics. In light of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, this Paper builds off the momentum that has been gained in the debate over the balance of power in the United Nations (UN) between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Specifically, a contemporary analysis of the chemistry between the Uniting for Peace Resolution and the UN Charter has become increasingly relevant. Accordingly, a favorable interpretation of the Uniting for Peace Resolution could provide a constitutional opportunity for the General Assembly to establish a UN ad-hoc tribunal—a responsibility traditionally reserved for the Security Council—to prosecute high-powered perpetrators of atrocity crimes within the Assad regime. Not unmindful of the long-term political succession implications an international tribunal could have within Syria, this Paper nonetheless asserts that as a general matter, the UN Charter should be viewed as a “living tree”—a workable instrument whose interpretation may change over time to ensure it serves its object and purpose. With the ability of the Security Council to fulfill its statutory mandate under the highest levels of scrutiny by the international legal community, now is time to revive the Syrian accountability conversation.

Part II begins with a general review of the Arab Spring and the motivation underlying the uprisings in the Middle East. This Part distinguishes the events and consequences of the uprisings Tunisia and Egypt from that of Syria. Part III briefly examines the Syrian civil war and provides a thorough review of the crimes committed by the Assad regime. Part IV includes an analysis of the jurisdictional options for accountability in Syria. In eliminating many of the traditional mechanisms, it is here that the stage is set for a subsequent interpretation of the UN Charter and the Uniting for Peace Resolution (the Resolution). Part V argues that the Resolution should be re-examined in the modern context as a possible means of mitigating bad-faith Security Council vetoes. This Part analyzes the Resolution in coordination with the UN Charter and argues that under a liberal interpretation of each, the General Assembly can lawfully serve as a substitute for roles typically reserved for the Security Council. It is also here, that the evidence collected and preserved by the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria is discussed. Part VI considers drawbacks and practical challenges associated with the creation of an UN ad-hoc tribunal for crimes committed in Syria. Part VII concludes that while a liberal interpretation of the statutory language may be idealistic, such interpretation nonetheless could have lasting effects in shaping a currently broken system. Such developments would, in the long run, help to promote human rights, deter future authoritarian regimes from attacking their own population, and ultimately strengthen the UN’s ability as a whole to promote humanity and justice in the international system.