International Law Violations: Understanding Global Repercussions

International law is a complex and ever-evolving set of rules and practices that govern the conduct of sovereign states, organisations, and individuals. While there is no global police force to enforce these laws, there are clear consequences for violations, which can be broadly categorised into state and individual responsibility. When a state violates international law, it may face sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or even military intervention. States are obligated to immediately cease unlawful conduct, provide reparations, and guarantee non-repetition. On the other hand, individuals who commit international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide may be tried at an international court. The consequences of breaking international law aim to uphold social and economic development, as well as maintain international peace and security.

Sanctions and military intervention

The United Nations (UN) Security Council has established 31 sanctions regimes since 1966. These have taken various forms, including comprehensive economic and trade sanctions, and more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council applies sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter unconstitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights, and promote non-proliferation.

There are several types of sanctions:

• Economic sanctions: Typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or with certain exceptions like food and medicine.
• Diplomatic sanctions: Reduction or removal of diplomatic ties, such as embassies.
• Military sanctions: Military intervention.
• Sport sanctions: Preventing a country's people and teams from competing in international events.
• Sanctions on the environment: International environmental protection efforts have increased gradually since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
• Sanctions on individuals: The UN Security Council can implement sanctions on political leaders or individuals for economic reasons.

Military intervention is the use of military force by a state or international organisation. It is considered a justifiable case of military intervention when it is authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This chapter outlines the measures that do not involve the use of armed force.

Military intervention can also be justified in cases of self-defence, as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the unilateral or collective right to resort to military force in self-defence. This can be activated when there is an imminent threat of attack, leaving no choice of means or moment of deliberation.

Humanitarian intervention is another possible justification for military intervention. This is when foreign populations are endangered in cases of genocide and mass killing. During the 1990s, the UN Security Council interpreted its discretionary powers under Chapter VII to define humanitarian crises inside state borders as a threat to international peace and security, justifying military enforcement action.

In cases of intervention, whether by states or international organisations, there is a responsibility to create a legitimate rule-governed state through nation-building. This commitment applies regardless of whether the original intervention was for self-defence or humanitarian reasons.

International criminal trials

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice, which is an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states.

The ICC was established in 2002 pursuant to the multilateral Rome Statute, which serves as the court's charter and governing document. States that become party to the Rome Statute become members of the ICC and serve on the Assembly of States Parties, which administers the court. As of January 2025, there are 125 ICC member states.

The ICC is intended to serve as the "court of last resort", complementing existing national judicial systems, and may exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals. It lacks universal territorial jurisdiction and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.

The ICC has four principal organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry. The President is the most senior judge chosen by the eighteen judges in the Judicial Division, who hear cases before the Court. The Office of the Prosecutor is headed by the Prosecutor, who investigates crimes and initiates criminal proceedings before the Judicial Division. The Registry is headed by the Registrar and is charged with managing all the administrative functions of the ICC.

The ICC has faced criticism from some governments and civil groups, who have accused the court of bias, Eurocentrism, racism, and ineffectiveness as a means of upholding international law. There have also been concerns about insufficient checks and balances on the authority of the ICC prosecutor and judges, and insufficient protection against politicised prosecutions or other abuses.

Despite these criticisms, the ICC remains a significant institution in international law and has brought charges against dozens of individuals, including Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, former President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, President Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, and Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi. Notably, in March 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights in Russia, Maria Lvova-Belova, for child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Individual Criminal Responsibility

International law provides for individuals to be held criminally responsible for international crimes. Each member of an armed force is directly held responsible for the breaches they commit. Individual criminal responsibility also allows for the prosecution of persons who aid, assist, attempt, facilitate, abet, plan, or instigate the commission of a war crime. Military commanders who order their subordinates to violate international humanitarian law are also held responsible by the law of armed conflicts.

The ICC has indicted more than fifty individuals, mostly from African countries, and twenty-one people have been detained in The Hague, with ten convictions and four acquittels. However, it is important to note that the only individuals who are actually tried by the ICC are mid-level African rebel commanders, while very high-profile political leaders from different parts of the world remain accused but not prosecuted.

Fines and punishments

Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions are a common punishment for violations of international law. They can take various forms, including trade embargoes, asset freezes, and restrictions on financial transactions. For example, in recent years, the United Nations Security Council has imposed economic sanctions on countries such as Angola, Haiti, Iraq, and Somalia. These sanctions aim to pressure the sanctioned country's government by hindering their economic activities, although they often have a more significant impact on civilians.

Trade Embargoes

A trade embargo is a specific type of economic sanction that restricts or prohibits a country from engaging in international trade. It can be comprehensive, halting all inward and outward trade except for essential humanitarian items, or selective, such as only embargoing trade in goods with military applications.

Diplomatic Sanctions

Diplomatic sanctions are another tool used to address breaches of international law. These can involve the severance of diplomatic relations, expulsion from international organisations, or the withholding of benefits and voting rights within those organisations. For example, a member of the United Nations who fails to pay their assessed dues may lose their voting rights in the General Assembly.

Armed Force

In extreme cases, the use of armed force may be authorised to counter an act of aggression or to restore international peace and security. However, this is typically done by authorising member states to "use all necessary means" rather than through a standing body of international law enforcement officers.

Other Punishments

Other consequences for breaking international law can include diplomatic pressure, unilateral sanctions, and judgments in domestic courts. International organisations may also apply pressure through the "mobilisation of shame" or by requiring states to report on their compliance with treaties.

Diplomatic pressure

International law is a complex and ever-evolving system of rules, practices, principles, and assertions that govern the conduct of sovereign states and international organisations. While there is no central governing or enforcing body, there are consequences for states that violate their international obligations. One such consequence is diplomatic pressure, which can take several forms and be applied by various actors in the international community.

In addition to inter-state diplomatic pressure, international organisations can also exert pressure on non-compliant states. For instance, the United Nations General Assembly, as a deliberative and policymaking organ, can hold debates and make non-binding recommendations or resolutions. While these are not legally binding, they can carry significant political weight and serve as a form of diplomatic pressure.

International organisations, including specialised agencies and regional organisations, have developed procedures to encourage compliance with recognised standards of conduct. One notable mechanism is the "mobilisation of shame", where non-compliant states are publicly censured or criticised, encouraging them to alter their behaviour to conform to international norms. This tactic can be particularly effective when combined with other forms of pressure or incentives.

Furthermore, diplomatic pressure can be a means to encourage compliance with international law before a violation occurs. States may engage in diplomatic negotiations, dialogues, or agreements to prevent potential violations from occurring. This proactive approach can help maintain international peace and security by addressing issues before they escalate.

In conclusion, diplomatic pressure is a versatile tool in the enforcement of international law. It can be applied through various channels, ranging from inter-state relations to the actions of international organisations and individual states. While diplomatic pressure may not always yield immediate results, it plays a crucial role in upholding international norms and encouraging compliance with international obligations.

Reparations

The right to reparations is a fundamental principle in international law, and it can be enforced at both the international and national levels. While reparations were traditionally a mechanism between states, it is now recognised that individuals are often the direct victims of violations of international law, particularly in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. As a result, individuals have the right to full and effective reparations, which cannot be negotiated away in peace agreements.

At the international level, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) can issue advisory opinions and reparation orders, respectively. Additionally, UN Security Council resolutions can establish obligatory reparation mechanisms, as seen in the case of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. At the national level, individuals may claim damages in the national courts of the violating state, in international or regional courts, or in certain cases, in a third-state court. Furthermore, states may introduce their own reparations programmes, as seen in Argentina after the military dictatorship in the 1980s, or agreements between states can lead to reparations programmes, such as the one between Germany and Israel following World War II.

Frequently asked questions