The Collapse of International Law and the Failure of the United Nations
International law, as a functioning system of constraint on state power, is no longer operative.
The United Nations, once envisioned as a guardian of collective security and legal order, has been structurally undermined by the veto power of its permanent Security Council members.
Russia, China, and the United States have repeatedly used their veto to shield themselves from accountability for actions that constitute clear violations of international law.
This has rendered the UN incapable of enforcing its own principles, transforming it into an institution of moral statements without enforcement capacity.
The recent use of military force by the United States to kidnap the Venezuelan president from his country represents a serious breach of sovereignty under international law.
Regardless of political justification, the forcible abduction of a head of state through armed intervention—accompanied by civilian casualties—meets the legal definition of kidnapping and unlawful use of force.
The subsequent transfer of the detainee to the United States raises further concerns regarding jurisdiction, due process, and judicial independence.
The failure of the United Kingdom Government to immediately and explicitly condemn these actions undermines its stated commitment to the rule of international law.
Under international norms, silence in the face of illegality contributes to its normalisation.
This pattern is not isolated: Israel’s conduct in Gaza, widely documented by international legal scholars and human rights organisations, continues largely unchecked due to systematic veto protection.
These realities call into question the legitimacy of the Security Council’s permanent membership structure.
A system in which the most powerful states can violate international law while enforcing it against others cannot credibly claim to uphold justice or peace.
The creation of an alternative multilateral body—composed of states committed to enforceable international law without veto immunity—may now be necessary.
Without such reform, international law risks becoming a purely rhetorical framework, applied selectively and abandoned when inconvenient.
Leave a comment