International Law Violations: What Are The Consequences?

International law is notoriously difficult to enforce, and often, nothing happens when someone breaks it. However, there are several mechanisms in place to enforce it. The most well-known is the United Nations Security Council, which can impose sanctions, including economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions. These sanctions can take the form of a trade embargo, which can be comprehensive or selective. Alternatively, international law can be enforced through self-help, which involves reprisals against the offending government, such as economic countermeasures. International organizations can also apply pressure, such as mobilization of shame or the application of pressure through reporting and compliance procedures. Finally, in some cases, individuals who break international law may be tried at an international court, although this can take decades.

Sanctions

The use of sanctions by states, particularly outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council, has a complicated relationship with international law. Depending on the measures adopted by a state, sanctions could be an entirely legal exercise of its sovereignty or a potentially unlawful breach of international law that would require some justification. The legal framework that applies to states adopting their own sanctions in international law is complex, dynamic, and unsettled. There is no single international treaty dealing with sanctions and when states may or may not adopt them. Some rules that may restrict these actions are split between different sources of international law, including treaties and customary international law.

Military intervention

However, military intervention is a complex issue that has been the subject of much debate and discussion. The InterAction Council, for instance, convened a High-level Expert Group in 2004 to explore the conditions under which military interventions are justified. This group emphasised the importance of peaceful dispute resolution and the role of institutions such as the International Criminal Court. They also highlighted the need for a commitment to the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes, as outlined in the UN Charter.

The InterAction Council's report further stressed the importance of collective security and the role of the Security Council in addressing threats to international security. In the case of Iraq, for instance, the Security Council's focus on WMD capabilities stood in stark contrast to its treatment of other states possessing or developing such weapons. The invasion of Iraq, justified on the basis of a 'golden thread' of resolutions, was ultimately not considered legally authorised under international law.

In summary, military intervention as a response to the breach of international law is a complex and multifaceted issue. It involves considerations of collective security, the role of international institutions, and the need for peaceful dispute resolution. While military intervention can be justified in certain circumstances, it is essential to carefully evaluate each situation and adhere to the principles outlined in the UN Charter and international law.

International court trials

International law is a complex and multifaceted topic, and the enforcement of these laws can vary depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the violation. Here is an overview of how international law violations are addressed, with a focus on international court trials:

• Nature of the Violation: The consequences of breaking international law depend on the type of violation. For individuals, this could range from committing a war crime to violating the laws of another country while on vacation. For states, it could involve invading another country or violating human rights.
• Time and Resources: Pursuing justice for international law violations can be a lengthy and costly process. This is why, in some cases, nothing happens, especially if the violation is minor or difficult to prove.
• International Courts: International courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), have been established to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes concerning the international community, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression. These trials can take decades and often require the cooperation of the individual's home country.
• Sanctions: In cases where a state violates international law, sanctions may be imposed by other countries or international organizations like the United Nations Security Council. These sanctions can be economic (e.g., trade embargoes), diplomatic (e.g., severing diplomatic relations), or military (e.g., armed intervention).
• Private International Law: In some cases, violations of international law may fall under private international law, where private entities or individuals are held accountable. For example, an energy company that spills oil in the sea around another country may face fines and penalties.
• Enforcement Mechanisms: International law recognizes various enforcement mechanisms, including self-help measures and the involvement of international organizations. However, there is currently no standing body of international law enforcement officers, and political support for creating such a body is limited.
• Country Cooperation: The cooperation of the individual's home country is crucial in international court trials. Without this cooperation, extradition and evidence gathering can be challenging, and the process may take much longer.
• Public Opinion and Shame: International organizations can exert pressure on non-compliant member states by expressing disapproval or even suspending or expelling them from the organization. This "mobilization of shame" can be an effective tool to encourage compliance with international law.
• Technical Assistance: In some cases, international organizations may offer technical assistance or advice to help member states comply with international law. This is especially relevant when the member state lacks the technical capacity to comply, rather than willful disobedience.

Fines and punishment

The United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is the enforcement mechanism that has been most in the news in recent years. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and may impose mandatory sanctions to rectify the situation. These sanctions may be economic, diplomatic, or military in nature. Trade and diplomatic sanctions are slow to work and their burden often falls most heavily on ordinary civilians. Nevertheless, they can influence political leaders toward moderation if given enough time.

International organizations, including the UN and its Specialized Agencies, have developed procedures to allow pressure to be brought against governments that do not comply with recognized standards of conduct. For example, multilateral treaties in the human rights field require state parties to report on their compliance and send representatives to appear before treaty-monitoring bodies to explain their actions. This gives the monitoring bodies opportunities to apply pressure for compliance.

Diplomatic relations severed

Severing diplomatic relations is a serious step that can be taken when one country breaks international law. This can be done as a form of punishment or to send a message of disapproval. However, it is a rare occurrence as it is usually in the best interests of both countries to maintain diplomatic relations.

• United States and Cuba (1961-2015): The United States severed diplomatic relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961. This rupture lasted for 54 years, making it an uncommon length for a diplomatic break according to the State Department. The relations were re-established on August 14, 2015.
• United States and Iran (1980): The US severed diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980, following the Iran hostage crisis.
• United States and Albania (1939): US-Albanian diplomatic relations ended on June 5, 1939, after the Italian invasion of Albania.
• United States and Bulgaria (1941, 1950): Bulgaria severed diplomatic relations with the US in 1941. Relations were re-established in 1947 but severed again in 1950 and resumed in 1959.
• United States and Nicaragua (1909, 1926, 1947): The US severed diplomatic relations with Nicaragua on December 1, 1909. Normal diplomatic relations were restored in 1911. Relations were severed again in 1926 and in 1947 following coups d'état.
• United States and France (1798, 1942): Diplomatic relations with France were severed in 1798 as a result of the XYZ Affair. Relations were restored in 1801. US-France diplomatic relations were severed again in 1942 at the direction of the French Vichy government. Normal diplomatic relations were restored, and the US embassy in Paris was reopened in December 1944.
• United States and Germany (1917, 1941): The US severed diplomatic relations with the German Empire in 1917 and declared war shortly thereafter. Diplomatic relations with Germany were broken off again in December 1941 when Germany declared war on the US.
• United States and Japan (1941): Diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States were mutually severed on December 8, 1941, when both nations declared war on each other following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
• United States and Iraq (1967, 1991): Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the US in June 1967 during the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. Relations were re-established in 1984. The two countries mutually severed relations again in 1991 following the Invasion of Kuwait.
• United States and Spain (1898): Spain severed diplomatic relations with the United States on April 21, 1898, and the legation in Madrid was closed on that day. The US declared war on Spain as of that date by an Act of Congress approved April 25, 1898. Relations were restored in June 1899.
• Algeria and the United States (1967): Algeria severed diplomatic relations with the US in 1967 in the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Relations were re-established in 1974.
• Mauritania and the United States (1967): Mauritania severed diplomatic relations with the United States on June 7, 1967, in the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Relations were resumed in 1969 and the embassy was reopened in 1970.
• Syria and the United States (1967): Syria severed diplomatic relations with the US on June 6, 1967, in the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Normal relations were resumed in 1974.

Frequently asked questions