International Law Meets an Age of Impunity

Image: Somalia's President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud speaks at UPEACE graduation ceremony after being conferred a Doctorate degree in Peace, Governance and Development in Somalia, 2 December 2022.  
Source: Atmis Somalia / Wiki Commons

On 26 January, the UN Security Council convened a high-level open debate on “Reaffirming International Rule of Law.” Chaired by Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and featuring briefings from Secretary-General António Guterres and former International Court of Justice (ICJ) judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, the session was Somalia’s signature event during its return to the Council presidency after more than five decades.

The timing could hardly have been more fraught. Three weeks earlier, the United States launched Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro from his compound in Caracas. The Trump administration described the operation as a law-enforcement action. Legal scholars and international institutions, however, have widely characterised it as a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Venezuelan officials reported that at least 40 people were killed in the immediate aftermath, with later estimates placing the toll significantly higher.

At the same time, the war in Gaza continues under the shadow of the ICJ’s January 2024 provisional measures order, issued two years earlier, requiring Israel to take steps to prevent acts falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention. Whether those measures are being met remains deeply contested. No effective enforcement mechanism exists.

A further complication emerged in December 2025, when Israel formally recognised Somaliland as an independent state. The decision directly challenges Somalia’s territorial integrity. The Security Council convened an emergency session on 29 December. Most members warned that Israel’s move risked destabilising the Horn of Africa and weakening long-standing principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Somalia’s concept note for the debate was unusually candid. It argues that repeated breaches of international law in recent armed conflicts have fostered a perception that the international rule of law is being eroded, and warns that this perception fuels distrust and contributes to the gradual weakening of international legal norms. Its references to “selective accountability” were not rhetorical flourishes, but reflections of a political reality many states now recognise.

This framing points to a deeper problem. The crisis is not simply that powerful states violate international law; that has always been true. The more serious development is that such violations are increasingly treated as normal, while the institutions meant to restrain them remain unable to respond.

One issue quietly underpinning the debate is enforcement by the International Court of Justice. Article 94 of the UN Charter allows a party to seek Security Council recourse when an ICJ judgment is not complied with. The Court has issued binding provisional measures in both the South Africa v. Israel and Ukraine v. Russia cases. In both, the applicant states argue that the measures have not been implemented, a view widely shared among legal observers.

Member states disagree over whether Article 94 applies only to final judgments or also to provisional measures. But this legal argument misses the central point. Even if the Council accepted that enforcement authority exists, the veto ensures that action against any permanent member, or against close allies, is effectively off the table.

This is why debates about the rule of law cannot be separated from the structure of the Security Council itself. As long as some states are shielded from accountability while others are exposed to it, the international legal order will struggle to command legitimacy.

For Somalia, convening this debate carried particular weight. President Mohamud assumed the Council presidency while his country faces a direct challenge to its territorial integrity from a state that has repeatedly escaped meaningful Council pressure. In that context, concerns about selective accountability read less like theory than experience.

The discussion also reflected Africa’s long and uneven encounter with the international legal system. Conflicts in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere continue to claim lives while receiving inconsistent attention from the Council. Judge Yusuf’s participation was a reminder that legal authority and expertise are not confined to Western capitals. The African Union’s engagement pointed to a broader push for a legal order that reflects a genuinely multipolar world.

Somalia circulated a draft presidential statement on 17 January. It was withdrawn five days later, once US opposition became clear. Any language that might have constrained US freedom of action—whether in Venezuela, in its support for Israel, or elsewhere—was unlikely to survive negotiations.

The concept note’s guiding questions were serious and well chosen. What strategies might address threats to the rule of law? What steps could slow or reverse its erosion? Which underused provisions of the Charter could be brought back into play? Answering these questions honestly, however, requires recognising that the veto is not a technical flaw awaiting correction. It is a political instrument, designed to preserve the freedom of action of the powerful.

The debate took place at a moment when even the meaning of the ‘rule of law’ is contested. For some states, it demands accountability for Israeli actions in Gaza or US actions in Venezuela. For others, it means defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity against Russian aggression. For still others, it is primarily about protecting sovereignty from external interference.

When the same states invoke legal principles to condemn adversaries while carving out exceptions for themselves and their allies, those principles cease to function as law and become tools of power. As the eightieth anniversary of the UN Charter prompts reflection on whether the post-war international order can endure its current strains, the Council’s debate offered little reassurance. What it did offer was clarity: without confronting the structural privileges that enable impunity, appeals to the rule of law will continue to ring hollow.

Related articles by this author:

Middle Powers After Davos (3-minute read)

The UN’s Withering Vine: A US Retreat from Global Governance (3-minute read)

Venezuela and the UN's Proxy War Moment (3-minute read)

The Danger of a Transactional Worldview (3-minute read)

The Choice Is Still Clear: Renewing the UN Charter at 80 (3-minute read)

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.