By Patrick Olumide Campbell, Esq*
It is no longer news in the global community that states are increasingly engaged in actions that test, stretch, or outright violate the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. In nearly every case, the states concerned justify their conduct under the guise of national security, self-defence, or sovereign necessity. Meanwhile, regional institutions responsible for peace and security such as the European Union (EU), African Union (AU), ECOWAS, and others have repeatedly acknowledged that many of these actions, particularly by superpower states, constitute breaches of the principles of state sovereignty and the UN Charter.
Despite these acknowledgements, the global system has largely failed to enforce compliance or deter repetition. This growing pattern calls into question the effectiveness, impartiality, and relevance of international law and the UN Charter in contemporary global governance.
Unilateral Actions and the Failure of Collective Security
Recent global events demonstrate a recurring pattern of unilateral state action where collective decision-making through the United Nations should have prevailed. A notable example concerns the United States’ actions against Venezuela’s former president, Nicolás Maduro. Allegations of narco-terrorism, conspiracy, and national security threats were used to justify extraordinary actions, including his capture and transfer to the United States to face indictment.
Simultaneously, several permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council publicly rejected the legitimacy of Maduro’s 2024 election. Statements from global leaders including the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, U.S. officials, and France declared his presidency illegitimate. Panama went as far as withdrawing its diplomatic representation from Venezuela.
While concerns regarding election legitimacy and regional security are serious matters, they should have been addressed through the UN Security Council the principal body mandated to maintain international peace and security. Instead, the absence of timely, decisive, and coordinated UN action created a vacuum that enabled unilateral enforcement measures, which themselves raised serious concerns about violations of international law and the UN Charter.
Russia–Ukraine Conflict and Selective Accountability
Similarly, the Russian Federation’s annexation of Crimea and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 described by Russia as a “Special Military Operation” has resulted in massive loss of life, economic devastation, and prolonged instability. Russia justified its actions on national security grounds, citing NATO expansion as an existential threat.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia did not meaningfully pursue preventive diplomatic mechanisms within the Council before initiating military action. Instead, the international community witnessed a paralysis of the Security Council, followed by extensive sanctions imposed by the United States, the EU, and the United Kingdom.
Ukraine, in turn, received significant military and financial support from NATO allies, while Russia secured assistance from North Korea. The conflict has become a proxy war, with devastating humanitarian consequences. Statements from global leaders including former U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that Ukraine “should have never started it” reflect the depth of global division and the UN’s inability to enforce a unified legal framework.
The failure of the UN to act decisively and prevent escalation underscores a systemic weakness: enforcement of international law is inconsistent and often subordinate to geopolitical interests.
Israel–Palestine, Genocide Allegations, and Missed Opportunities
On 29 December 2023, South Africa instituted proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice, alleging violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza, particularly concerning the obstruction of humanitarian aid. While accountability mechanisms are essential, the international response has again appeared reactive rather than preventive.
Ironically, earlier diplomatic interventions most notably under the Trump administration made significant progress toward stabilising relations in the Middle East. These efforts, though controversial, produced tangible outcomes that even political opponents acknowledged. Such initiatives should have been led by the United Nations, whose primary responsibility is conflict prevention and resolution.
Selective Application of International Law
The inconsistency in applying international law is further illustrated by the response to U.S.- and UK-led airstrikes against the Houthi movement in Yemen. These actions were justified as necessary to protect global maritime security, and concerns about sovereignty or Charter violations were largely muted. This selective silence reinforces perceptions of bias and undermines the credibility of international law.
International law and the UN Charter must be applied equally, not selectively. Justice that is partial is justice denied.
Sovereignty as a Shield for Authoritarianism in Africa
In several African states, incumbent leaders and authoritarian regimes misuse sovereignty principles under international law as a shield to manipulate elections, suppress popular will, and perpetuate illegitimate rule. Regional and international institutions often respond with statements, condemnations, or mild sanctions that fail to restore democratic governance.
The consequences are evident: military coups in multiple West African states, justified by claims of electoral fraud, corruption, and governance failure. Guinea-Bissau and other states in the region exemplify how silence and inaction embolden unconstitutional seizures of power.
Sanctions alone are insufficient. The UN, AU, and ECOWAS must set enforceable precedents that deter both electoral manipulation and military intervention in democratic systems.
Emerging Risks: Taiwan and Nuclear Proliferation
Looking ahead, the proposed Chinese action regarding unification with Taiwan presents a serious risk of breaching international law if not managed through open dialogue and preventive diplomacy. The UN Security Council must engage proactively before escalation occurs.
Similarly, ongoing tensions involving Israel, Iran, and the United States over nuclear proliferation remain a critical area where the UN’s diplomatic efforts deserve recognition, though sustained vigilance is required.
Conclusion and Call for Reform
The United Nations must move beyond convening meetings after crises occur. There is an urgent need to:
- Review and reform international law and the UN Charter
- Close legal and institutional loopholes
- Strengthen preventive diplomacy
- Restructure the UN Security Council’s authority and leadership
- Expand permanent membership to reflect contemporary global realities
- Address military coups and electoral manipulation with consistency and enforceable consequences
If these reforms are not undertaken, violations of international law and the UN Charter will continue particularly through unilateral actions by powerful states. The world will witness more brinkmanship, erosion of sovereignty, and declining confidence in the international legal order.
The time for review, reform, and decisive leadership by the United Nations is now.
*Patrick Olumide Campbell, Esq is Chief Administrator/Chairman and Legal Adviser @ Sierra Leone Life Saving Society, and Country Director @ Sierra Leone Institute of International Law, Peace and Security.
