International Law Latest News
- Recent unilateral military actions by the United States have reignited global debate on violations of international law and the weakening of the UN-led multilateral order.
International Law and the Use of Force
- International law is founded on the principle of sovereign equality of states and the prohibition of force in inter-state relations.Â
- These principles were codified after the Second World War through the United Nations Charter, with the objective of preventing unilateral military aggression and preserving global peace.Â
- Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- The only two exceptions recognised under international law are:
- Use of force authorised by the UN Security Council, and
- The inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 is applicable only in response to an armed attack.
- Despite this legal framework, powerful states have increasingly justified military interventions outside these exceptions, raising concerns about the erosion of the international legal order.
Violation of the UN Charter Framework
- The recent U.S. military action against Venezuela represents a significant departure from established international legal norms.Â
- The operation was undertaken without authorisation from the UN Security Council and did not meet the legal threshold of self-defence.Â
- As such, it constitutes a direct violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
- The action also undermines the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, a cornerstone of international law.Â
- By forcibly intervening in the political leadership of a sovereign state, the operation challenges the legitimacy of multilateral institutions designed to regulate global security.
Breakdown of the Balance of Power
- The current international system reflects a weakening of the traditional balance-of-power mechanism.Â
- During the Cold War, the bipolar structure ensured that no single power could act without restraint.Â
- The presence of two competing superpowers acted as a deterrent against unilateral military action.
- Historical examples illustrate this dynamic clearly. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, external intervention threats were neutralised through counter-deployments by rival powers.Â
- Similarly, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, superpower intervention prevented escalation and forced diplomatic restraint.
- Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the global system transitioned into a largely unipolar order.Â
- This shift has enabled the United States to exercise military power with minimal external constraints, contributing to repeated interventions in West Asia and Latin America.
Expansion of Pre-emptive Military Doctrine
- A notable feature of contemporary U.S. foreign policy has been the increasing reliance on pre-emptive and preventive military action.Â
- The justification for such actions often rests on broad claims related to terrorism, weapons proliferation, or transnational crime.
- In the Venezuelan case, the stated objective of countering narco-terrorism appears legally tenuous.Â
- Available data suggest that Venezuela is not a major source of narcotics affecting the U.S., raising questions about the proportionality and necessity of military action.Â
- Instead, strategic and economic considerations, particularly access to natural resources, appear to play a significant role.
Implications for the Global Order
- The repeated bypassing of international legal norms has serious implications for global governance.Â
- It weakens the authority of the United Nations, normalises unilateralism, and sets dangerous precedents for other powerful states to follow.
- In the emerging geopolitical context, China is increasingly viewed as the only potential counterweight capable of restoring a degree of balance.Â
- While Russia and China may form tactical alignments, structural differences limit the prospects of a stable multipolar order in the near term.
Implications for India’s Foreign Policy
- For India, these developments highlight the risks inherent in a weakened rules-based international order.Â
- India has traditionally relied on international law and multilateralism to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests.
- The current global environment underscores the need for India to strengthen its strategic autonomy, invest in its defence-industrial base, and pursue diversified partnerships.Â
- A credible military and economic capacity remains essential for safeguarding national interests in an increasingly unilateral world order.
Source: TH
Intenrational Law FAQs
Q1: Which UN Charter provision prohibits the use of force by states?
Ans: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against sovereign states.
Q2: When is the use of force legally permitted under international law?
Ans: Only with UN Security Council authorisation or in self-defence after an armed attack.
Q3: Why is unilateral military action problematic for global order?
Ans: It undermines international law, weakens multilateral institutions, and sets dangerous precedents.
Q4: How did the Cold War balance of power restrain military aggression?
Ans: Rival superpowers counter-balanced each other, preventing unchecked use of force.
Q5: What lesson does this situation hold for India?
Ans: India must strengthen strategic autonomy and defence capacity to protect its interests in a unipolar world.