The Shortcomings of the Enforcement of International Law

By Lucas Baumann '26

---

Introduction

International law is a dynamic framework that has evolved over the years. From the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which established the notion of state sovereignty, to the creation of the League of Nations and, soon thereafter, the United Nations, international law has continually evolved. The United Nations and the International Court of Justice are among the best-known bodies in international law. The United Nations essentially sets the rules by drafting treaties and defining legal standards, whereas the International Court of Justice settles legal disputes that arise from breaking these guidelines set by the United Nations. (1) The effectiveness of these institutions in enforcing compliance, however, remains a contested question. State actors routinely violate international law, yet either no repercussions have been imposed, or these repercussions take too long to have any meaningful effect.

Venezuela and Iran

On January 3, 2026, the United States underwent “Operation Absolute Resolve,” in which the US and its military struck Caracas, Venezuela, and kidnapped its leader, Nicholas Maduro, based on narco-terrorism. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched “Operation Epic Fury,” which was an attack on Iran to destabilize their military programs. The strikes resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. However, were either of these attacks considered legal within the sphere of international law? The answer is no, yet neither the US nor Israel has yet to receive any repercussions or punishments for their actions. To understand why the US or Israel have yet to receive any repercussions, we first need to understand why both of these attacks are illegal within the scope of international law and then how international law is enforced.

To begin with, “Operation Absolute Resolve” is illegal under International Law on the basis of Article 2, subsection 4 of the UN Charter, which says: “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” (2) The use of force can be justified in instances such as self-defence or authorization from the UN Security Council, as per Article 51 and Article 42, but neither of these reasons justifies the US’s decision to invade and attack Venezuela. The UN Security Council did not authorize the attack, and defending oneself can only be invoked in the face of an actual or imminent strike and does not cover mere threats. Conversely, the Caroline Doctrine does state that states can act in self-protection for imminent threats as opposed to Article 51. However, the Caroline Doctrine is more often used as support for justifying the necessity and proportionality of the attack, while Article 51 is the document that is used for the legal basis.

Multiple UN experts, such as George Katrougalos, Ben Saul, and Surya Deva, strongly disapprove of the US’s military action in Venezuela, with the experts citing that “these actions represent a grave, manifest and deliberate violation of the most fundamental principles of international law [and] sets a dangerous precedent.” (3) These militaristic strikes by the US government amounted to the killing of at least a hundred civilian lives. “‘All of these measures are contrary to international and humanitarian law, including the non-derogable right to life, the experts said.” (4) This was a blatant disregard of both US and international law, yet the US still has not been punished for violating international law since it is on the UN Security Council and has the power to veto anything that is brought forth before it.

The same rationale explains why the US and Israel have not been punished for violating international law under “Operation Epic Fury.” “Operation Epic Fury” launched just over a month after “Operation Absolute Resolve” and was also not approved by either the UN Security Council or justifiable as self-defence. Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will argue that Iran was weeks away from creating fissile material for an active nuclear arsenal and that is their basis for self-defence, but they have been claiming this for over thirty years, and that has not been the case. (5) Furthermore, if Iran was that close to a nuclear arsenal, that doesn't necessarily constitute an actual or imminent strike. Possession of nuclear capability does not, under established international law, constitute an imminent armed attack justifying preemptive force. Nonetheless, the US and Israel launched a joint attack on Iran, violating international law, killing Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, amidst the strikes, and subsequently leading to war.

The Ineffectiveness of Enforcing International Law

As demonstrated, both “Operation Absolute Resolve” and “Operation Epic Fury” directly violate international law, yet the US and Israel have faced no consequences for their actions. Part of the reason the US has yet to face any real sanctions or consequences is due to its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. As a permanent member of the council, they have the power to veto in order to defend its own national interests. (6) This essentially allows the US to avoid any real repercussions for its actions. While the US is being named and shamed by its allies, it still is avoiding facing any meaningful legal consequences. Even if sanctions or punishments were to be imposed, they would be so minuscule and ineffective against a global powerhouse such as the US. Time and time again, US President Donald Trump has ignored the advice of his international advisors, violating international law and continuing to avoid consequences. This furthermore demonstrates how the United States continues to act in a manner that is inconsistent with international law. International law is ineffective at enforcing its framework, as countries like the US and Israel continue to violate it and are not suffering the consequences. It seems to set the precedent that while you might get named and shamed for violating international law, as long as the violating state holds permanent membership on the Security Council, or benefits from the protection of a member who does, they can get away with consistently violating international law. (7)

International Law Needs a Rework

A fundamental structural reform is needed for International Law, and it starts with the permanent members of the UN’s Security Council having too much power. To begin with, one possibility to limit the power of the permanent members on the UN’s Security Council would be to restrict their veto powers. While it would be difficult to predict exactly how this would look, presumably it would prevent countries from using their veto when the bill or resolution relates to themselves, including their own interests, or when the bill of resolution concerns a direct ally. For example, back in 2022, regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine, as a permanent member of the Security Council and main actor in the war, Russia kept using its veto on any bills that would end their attack or help aid Ukraine. (8) This further demonstrated the inefficiency of both the Security Council and international law and the ineffectiveness in dealing with large-scale international crises.

Additionally, the permanent members of the Security Council should not have the ability to veto bills of resolutions that concern mass atrocities, which is considered to include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. However, the mass atrocity would have to be legally proven prior to the bill in order to prevent the permanent members from using their veto, and since it would take time for the mass atrocity to be proven in a court of law, timewise this would be difficult to implement.

Conclusion

With it being unlikely that the US and Israel will face any punishments for violating international law, it demonstrates its ineffectiveness to the international community. If the framework of international law is not reworked, given the precedent that the US has set, it's only a matter of when, not if, another country breaks international law next. Will China finally invade Taiwan? Will Russia increase its invasion into Ukraine? Will Israel escalate its attack on Gaza? Or will the US find a new country to invade for its own self-interested reasons? The precedent that international law has set these past twelve months is concerning, and experts have a right to be concerned. Geoffrey Robertson, an Australian human rights advocate and author, affirms this by stating that “the US, Russia, and Israel have all expanded the right to self-defence to a farcical degree.” (9) As a result, South Africa brought forth a case to the ICJ, more formally known as the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide in an effort to hold them accountable for their actions. (10) This case has been ongoing for three years now and is currently still in the early stages. Likely, there won’t be a result for years to come. And interestingly enough, legally, in an international court of law, no state has been definitively convicted of genocide.

This further demonstrates the ineffectiveness of international law. By the time the ICJ would have come to a ruling, the damage would have already been done. The current existing framework needs to be restructured to better help states and to limit the power of the permanent members of the Security Council. Overall, the shortcomings in the enforcement of international law are failing us, and there needs to be some change to the existing framework.

Endnotes

1. United Nations. (n.d.). Uphold international law. https://www.un.org/en/our-work/uphold -international-law#:~:text=The%20UN's%20work%20on%20international%20law%20includes:,development%20of%20international%20law%20and%20its%20codification

2. United Nations. (n.d.). Repertory of practice of United Nations organs: Article 2. https://le gal.un.org/repertory/art2.shtml

3. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. “UN Experts Condemn US Aggression against Venezuela.” OHCHR. January 7, 2026. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/un-experts-condemn-us-aggression-against-venezuela

4. Ibid.

5. Al Jazeera. (2025, July). “Benjamin Netanyahu’s 33 Years of Iran’s Nuclear Warnings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzmtdwsef8s

6. Security Council Report. (n.d.). The veto. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-secur ity-co uncil-working-methods/the-veto.phimposed, they would be so minuscule and ineffective againstp

7. Al Jazeera. (2026, January 6). US critics and allies condemn Maduro’s abduction at UN Security Council.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/6/us-critics-and-allies-condemn-m aduros-abduction-at-un-security-council#:~:text=News%7CNicolas%20Maduro-,US%20critics%20and%20allies%20condemn%20Maduro's%20abduction%20at%20UN%20Security,the%20US%20violated%20international%20law.&text=Members%20of%20the%20United%20Nations,in%20a%20US%20federal%20court.

8. Pereira, Paulo Casaca. “Security Council Reform: Why It Is So Difficult.” GIS Reports Online, May 17, 2024. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/security-council-reform/

9. Robertson, Geoffrey. “Geoffrey Robertson Believes International Law Is Failing Us—But the Solutions Are Unclear.” https://www.murdoch.edu.au/news/articles/geoffrey-robertson-be lieves-international-law-is-failing-us---but-the-solutions-are-unclear

10. “South Africa's Genocide Case Against Israel.” Diplomacy and Law, May 3, 2026. https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/south-africa-s-genocide-case-against-israel