By Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos *
As wars, regime-change operations, censorship, and territorial threats proliferate, international law is increasingly treated not as a binding framework but as an obstacle to power. From Washington to Brussels, Moscow to Beijing, violations are justified in the name of security while the rules meant to restrain domination are hollowed out.
Introduction
International law emerged from the wreckage of world war as a promise that power would be constrained by rules rather than exercised through conquest and coercion. Anchored in the UN Charter, human rights treaties, and the laws of war, it was meant to apply equally to all states. Today, that promise is in retreat. Under the language of security, values, and a so‑called “rules‑based order,” powerful actors increasingly violate international law with impunity. What is presented as global leadership often functions as imperial privilege.
Imperial Violence and the Ban on Force
Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in 2022,even though it was provoked by the West that had violated its promise given in 1990 to the Soviet Union that it woukd not expand NATO is a textbook case of imperial aggression. By attempting to redraw borders through force , Russia violated the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggressive war. Appeals to history, ethnicity, or security echo the justifications long used by empires to legitimize conquest.
Yet imperial disregard for the law is not confined to Moscow. The United States—the principal architect of the post‑1945 legal order—has repeatedly treated the ban on the use of force as optional. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, launched without UN authorization, was an illegal war of choice whose consequences still destabilize the region. Subsequent drone warfare and special operations across the Global South have normalized permanent intervention while shielding decision‑makers from accountability.
Regime Change as Imperial Practice: The Abduction of Nicolás Maduro
In early 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump escalated this pattern by authorizing the capture and transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. Seizing a sitting head of state without consent or international mandate constitutes a grave violation of sovereignty and the principle of non‑intervention. Rebranded as law enforcement, the operation revived a classic imperial practice: powerful states claiming the right to decide who governs weaker ones.
Such actions collapse the distinction between international law and imperial policing. They signal that legal equality among states is conditional—respected only when it aligns with the interests of dominant powers.
Greenland and the Return of Territorial Expansion
Trump’s repeated threats to take control of Greenland further expose the imperial mindset behind contemporary violations. Greenland, a self‑governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is not a commodity to be acquired through pressure, sanctions, or force. Even rhetorical threats contradict the UN Charter’s protection of territorial integrity and the prohibition on acquisition of territory by coercion.
That such claims were directed at a small population and a formal ally underscores how easily imperial logic resurfaces beneath the rhetoric of partnership and security.
Europe’s Double Standard: Censorship and Political Interference
The European Union, despite its self‑image as a defender of democracy and international law, is not exempt. Under the banner of combating “disinformation” or protecting European values, EU institutions and member states have supported sweeping bans on media outlets, pressure on digital platforms to suppress political speech, and expansive restrictions that conflict with international human rights law. These measures often violate the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, replacing narrow, lawful limitations with continent‑wide censorship.
More troubling is the EU’s growing willingness to intervene in domestic political processes. In Romania, allegations of external pressure, judicial manipulation, and institutional interference linked to EU power structures raise serious concerns about violations of political self‑determination. When supranational authorities influence elections or delegitimize outcomes in the name of “defending democracy,” they reproduce the very anti‑democratic practices they claim to resist.
Gaza, Israel, and the Collapse of Humanitarian Law
Israel’s military campaign in Gaza represents one of the most severe contemporary crises of international humanitarian law. Large‑scale attacks on civilian areas, the destruction of essential infrastructure, mass displacement, and the obstruction of humanitarian aid violate the core principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. Collective punishment of a civilian population is explicitly prohibited under international law, yet has been repeatedly documented by UN agencies and humanitarian organizations.
Despite mounting evidence of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, accountability has been systematically blocked by Israel’s political allies. Legal findings and provisional measures issued by international judicial bodies have been dismissed or ignored, reinforcing the perception that international law is selectively applied when the perpetrator is a strategic ally of Western powers.
Attacking Accountability: U.S. Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
The erosion of international law is further exposed by the United States’ decision to impose sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court. By targeting judges, prosecutors, or staff for carrying out their legal mandate, the U.S. has directly interfered with the independence of an international judicial institution.
Such sanctions violate the principle of judicial independence and undermine the global system of accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rather than engaging through legal argument or due process, the use of economic coercion against court officials signals that international justice will be tolerated only when it does not threaten powerful states or their allies.
Conclusion
Today’s violations of international law are not isolated breaches but symptoms of a deeper crisis: the persistence of imperial power within a formally legal world. From wars of aggression and regime‑change operations to censorship, collective punishment, and attacks on international courts, the legal order is increasingly subordinated to political and military dominance.
If international law is to serve as a genuine alternative to empire, it must be applied equally and defended against retaliation by powerful states. Without accountability for all actors—especially those who claim to champion democracy and the rule of law—the promise of a law‑governed international order will continue to give way to coercion, impunity, and the normalization of injustice. Today’s violations of international law are not isolated breaches but symptoms of a deeper crisis: the persistence of imperial power within a formally legal world. From wars of aggression and regime change to censorship and threats of territorial acquisition, international law is increasingly invoked against adversaries while being diluted at home.
If international law is to serve as a genuine alternative to empire, it must be applied equally and enforced against the powerful as well as the weak. Without dismantling structures of impunity, the promise of a law‑governed international order will continue to give way to coercion, domination, the return of imperial rule. And perhaps the destruction of humanity.
* Ambassador ad honorem
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
