… can International Law restrain superpowers?
Global justice seems to be on hold. For it is no longer controversial to say that international law and multilateral institutions are irrelevant when they conflict with United States (US) interests. That reality has become a recurring pattern in global affairs, a pattern that exposes deep structural weaknesses in the international system and highlights how powerful states, particularly the US can selectively weaponize norms while undermining them when inconvenient.
The most recent and stark example is the US military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. In the wake of these actions, leading global institutions, sovereign states, and regional organisations have openly criticised Washington’s conduct casting serious doubt on whether the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law still matter when a global power chooses to ignore them.
At its core, the problem is not merely American hypocrisy, but the failure of the international system especially the UN to enforce its own principles impartially. The UN Charter was designed to protect sovereignty, prevent aggression, and bind all states to the same legal standards. Instead, powerful nations have repeatedly flouted these norms, using multilateral bodies when convenient and dismissing them when they stand in the way of geopolitical objectives. Smaller nations are expected to comply, while powerful ones act with virtual impunity.
For decades, the US States has intervened in the internal affairs of weaker states through sanctions, economic pressure, covert operations, and direct military force often without clear mandates from the UN Security Council. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, undertaken despite widespread international opposition and lacking a UN mandate, remains one of the clearest examples of this habit: Washington justified military intervention on the basis of alleged weapons of mass destruction that were never found.
Similarly, US led NATO air strikes in Kosovo in 1999 proceeded without explicit Security Council approval, justified on humanitarian grounds. The later military operations in Libya in 2011 and the interventions in Syria demonstrated the same pattern: old alliances or ad-hoc coalitions replace the formal multilateral oversight envisioned in the post World War II order.
The US action in Venezuela has raised this issue once again. The military operation that led to the capture and extradition of President Maduro prompted a wave of international condemnation from UN officials to regional governments, underscoring global concern over unilateral uses of force.
The United Nations Human Rights Office stated that the intervention “violates international law and undermines global security,” warning that the use of force against another nation’s political independence or territorial integrity undermines core principles of the U.N. system.
At a UN Security Council emergency meeting, countries including Brazil, China, Russia, and several Latin American states condemned the operation as a violation of sovereignty and the U.N. Charter. Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, described the bombings and seizure of Maduro as crossing an “unacceptable line” and setting a “dangerous precedent.”
Likewise, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez also criticised the operation as violating international law, accusing the US of seeking to gain control of Venezuela’s energy resources, a dangerous precedent in global politics.
Russia and China delivered some of the strongest condemnations in the Security Council, accusing Washington of acting above international law and calling for the release of Maduro. Both emphasised that unilateral uses of force undermine the very foundations of the global order.
Other countries went further, Cuba’s president denounced the actions as “state terrorism” and a serious breach of international law. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), representing a large coalition of developing states, asserted that the US attacks violated the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and threatened both regional and international peace and stability.
Statements from the Swiss foreign ministry emphasised the importance of restraint and respect for international law, saying the prohibition on the use of force and respect for territorial integrity must be upheld, even if domestic politics motivate external action.
And… despite all this criticism, America remains unmoved!
This widespread international criticism reflects a deeper concern, for, if the UN cannot restrain its most powerful members, what purpose does it serve? Statements denouncing violations mean little without enforcement mechanisms, and resolutions without teeth cannot check the behaviour of those who wield veto power.
The UN Secretary-General himself expressed deep concern about the regional implications of the Venezuela operation and emphasised the need for peaceful, democratic solutions grounded in international law.
This imbalance where powerful states write their own rules while weaker states are bound by legal constraints is precisely what the UN Charter sought to prevent. Yet, veto power and selective enforcement have transformed the Security Council into a place where power politics supersedes legal principles.
Noteworthy is the fact that global repercussions will certainly follow beyond Venezuela, because when the global order appears subject to the whims of powerful nations, smaller states lose confidence in multilateral institutions. This undermines cooperation on climate change, arms control, trade, and human rights, issues that require trust and predictability.
When international law is seen as a tool rather than a shared foundation, countries are more likely to pursue bilateral coercion, regional alliances outside U.N. frameworks, or unilateral actions to protect themselves. This trend weakens global governance and increases risk of conflict.
What is urgently needed is not another statement of concern, but structural reform of international institutions such as an end veto abuse by permanent Security Council members; ensuring equal application of international law regardless of power, strengthen dispute resolution mechanisms that do not rely on the acquiescence of dominant states; and protection smaller nations from coercive economic measures and unilateral military actions.
Without such reforms, the UN risks becoming exactly what critics have long feared: a forum for speeches with no power, credibility, or moral authority while imperial behaviour goes unchecked.
The era of blind faith in broken institutions is over. With each unilateral action that goes unchallenged, the normative foundation of the post-World War II international order erodes further. If the global community allows the selective application of international law to continue, it will consign the promise of collective security to history.
The real question now is not whether the UN can reform, but whether it will, or whether the world will, tolerate a system where might makes right.
Only by reaffirming the principle that no nation big or small is above the law can the international community hope to preserve a stable, just, and peaceful world.
