Authored By: Victory Osaose Igbinovia
Lancaster University
Introduction
The 17th century British philosopher John Locke once wrote, “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.[1]” This quote successfully frames a necessary quality for a just and fair legal system: equality under the law. This principle places the law as the ultimate authority in the legal system, which consequently makes monarchs and rulers subject to the law, hence not above legal accountability.
In early January 2026, a large-scale military attack by the United States was launched against Venezuela. What arguably made this case a historic disregard of international law was the lack of legal repercussions the United States faced. Hence, this case highlighted a significant gap in the current international legal system, which potentially risks undermining the influence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a legal body.
This article will argue that the current international legal system is not capable of holding imperial politicians accountable. Whilst the current system continues to hold relevance and promote harmonious relations between nations, it is not sufficiently capable of dealing with leaders who are willing to act unilaterally. The article proceeds as follows. Section II will cover a brief introduction to international law and the historical significance of the institutions that represent it. Section III analyses the influence of international law in holding politicians accountable. Section IV examines existing legal frameworks for accountability. Finally, Section V will summarise the key findings of this research.
Introduction to International Law
History of the United Nations
The term international law refers to a body of rules that control or affect the rights of nations in their relations with each other.[2] The United Nations is an international organisation that was established in 1945, following the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, which was a treaty that includes the purposes and principles, membership, and organs of the United Nations[3]. The aim of this treaty was the maintenance of international peace and security.[4]
The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which was established by the Charter of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference in June 1945. The court was the replacement and successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) which was formally dissolved due to the perceived feeling that European States, particularly those who were members of the League of Nations, disproportionally dominated the political and legal affairs of the international community. [5]The International Court of Justice subsequently represented a new beginning, which allowed for all states, including those outside Europe, to play more influential roles, thus, to feel represented.
The Main Function and Significance of the International Court of Justice
Currently, the International Court of Justice is an autonomous body that is permanently in session[6]. Its main function is to settle disputes between sovereign states and give advisory opinions. Whilst the ICJ has no powers of enforcement[7], the states involved in the cases usually comply with the ruling of the court due to their membership of the United Nations. The ICJ rulings have fundamentally shaped modern international law, for instance their rulings have reaffirmed the prohibition of force under the UN Charter[8] to promote more cordial relations. Therefore, when considering the noteworthy influence of the ICJ, it would be reasonable to argue that the ICJ is not only a necessary organ of the United Nations but is also a symbol of justice in international law due to its role as a mediator which helped maintain amicable relations between nations.
Analysis on the Influence of International Law on Imperial Politicians
An imperial politician is defined as a politician whose administration has little to no opposition.[9] The president acts with expanded unilateral authority, which often outstretch the powers given by their constitution. This expanded authority can often be the direct result of times of war.
Trump Administration’s Attack on Venezuela
When looking at the military attack of the United States on Venezuela, it is reasonable to assert that it cemented Trump as an imperial president who international law is unable to account for. Especially when considering how the attack was done without the consent of Congress or the consultation of the ‘Gang of Eight,’ who are the senior members of the two major parties in Congress. Trump’s choice to act unilaterally in this situation not only points to a lack of trust in Congress but also to his willingness to extend his authority much further than what the US Constitution would allow.
The military attack was a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, given that the United States used armed forces[10], had imperial control of a foreign country[11] and captured the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to put them in trial in the United States.
Whilst the attack was labelled a “dangerous precedent[12]” by the UN, the United States faced no repercussions. This can be attributed to the position of the United States as a permanent member in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which means it has the power to veto. This veto allows for members to defend their national interests[13], hence, in practice the United States could potentially use the veto to justify this operation as a form of self-defence under the UN Charter. The possibility of using sanctions as well would not have much of an impact due to the presence of this veto. Consequently, it is evident that the current international legal system may not be sufficiently equipped to adequately deal with this situation due to a lack of impact of potential responses the UN could resort to.
Proponents of the less compelling view may attempt to justify this case as it being a ‘special case,’ and that the capability of the current international legal system should not solely be based on it. However, the argument is easily dismissed when acknowledging the Noriega precedent[14], where the United States previously posed a challenge to the sovereignty of another nation and received no legal repercussions. The inability of organisations like the ICJ, which represent international law, to hold such administrations accountable, potentially means imminent danger to third world countries who in comparison to the United States do not possess the same military prowess. Therefore, it is far more convincing to argue that when considering this case, the current international legal system has proven itself to be incapable of adequately holding imperial presidents, like Trump to account.
Putin Administration’s Attack on Ukraine
Defenders of the flawed view would assert that international law has successfully held imperial leaders to account. They may cite how following the Russian invasion and missile attacks on Ukraine, the ICJ and the UN played a role in holding the administration to account. By attacking and invading Ukraine, Russia violated the UN Charter prohibition on using force[15]. Despite its position as a permanent member of the UNSC, states in the UN responded with imposing sanctions, which would result ultimately result in reducing the amount of spending that Russia could put into military action. UN member states also raised the issue to the ICJ[16] and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in order to hold Russia liable for its imperialism driven attack on Ukraine. This shows that the current international legal system allows for accountability, especially for imperial presidents, as seen by the firm stance the UN took with Ukraine.
However, the legal case of the ICJ is still ongoing, and whilst there is condemnation for the actions of Russia against Ukraine, the administration is yet to be fully held liable as the current war is far from over. The reality of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine evidently points to the difficulty international legal organisations face to hold imperial leaders to account. Despite the justification Putin made for the invasion clearly contradicting the UN Charter, the UN could only recommend states to adopt sanctions as a form of countermeasure to Russia, yet the effect of this was reduced as a result of some countries, prevalently in Eastern Europe being unable to afford adopting sanctions due to their economic reliance on trade with Russia. Although attempts are being made to hold Putin’s administration accountable for violating international law, we are yet to see the resolution and its effects. Finally, it is necessary to consider that the ICJ lacks the ability to fully hold them account due to the court lacking direct enforcement powers
Existing Legal Frameworks for Accountability
Based on the lack of enforcement powers of the ICJ, it is reasonable to argue that only the legal system of the country is far more suited to hold imperial politicians to account.
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
In the United States, the Supreme Court is an independent branch, due to the principle of separation of powers being enshrined in the US Constitution.
Although SCOTUS justices are appointed by presidents, their rulings have successfully held the executive to account when attempts were made by it to expand its influence.
Recent rulings against Trump’s administration in his second term, which ruled that the president had no legal basis to impose tariffs.[17] This highlights the ability of legal systems in the country to perform the function of oversight on imperial presidents, this is further supported by how the decisions of the court become quasi-legislative if Congress does not pass any legislation to clarify the law. Furthermore, the ability to strike down executive orders if found unconstitutional further adds a layer of checks and balances on the power of the executive.
Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that the reach of the court is limited to domestic policies, and that when international laws are broken, their ability to conduct oversight on the president is limited.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (SCOTUK)
In the UK, the Supreme Court is an independent branch, following the passing of the CRA (2005).[18]
Although the court does not have the ability to strike down government policies, but instead declare rulings ultra vires, which means beyond powers, the government has previously listened to ruling of court, for instance during when Prime Minister unlawfully prorogued Parliament.[19]
Whilst the Supreme Court may not always be successful due to various degrees of influence courts rulings have, may be more suitable to avoid infringing on a country’s sovereignty and democratic rights, which the UN Charter is all about in the first place.
Conclusion
In conclusion whilst the current international legal system continuous to hold significant relevance in international law, it is evident that it is not sufficiently capable of adequately dealing with imperial presidents. Although the ICJ is more successful in handling international law violations when both states involved are willing to cooperate to solve the dispute brought before the court. When it comes to imperial politicians, who may have no regards for international law or conventions, the ICJ and the UN visibly struggle to hold these individuals to account, even more so if the nation is a permanent Member State of the UNSC, due to the ICJ not having enforcement power in order to respect the sovereignty of the state and prevent infringes on the self-determination of the people of said state.
Therefore, it is evident that the current international legal system is unable to fully hold these individuals responsible for violating international law.
Table of Cases
Learning Resources Inc. v Trump 607 U.S (2026)
Nicaragua v Unite States [1986] ICJ Reports 1986, p.14
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC41
Ukraine v Russian Federation ICJ Reports 2022
United States v Noriega 746 F. Supp. 1506 (1990)
Table of Legislation
Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (San Francisco, 1945) art 1 s 2
Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (San Francisco, 1945) art 2 s 4
Constitutional Reform Act [2005] s1 (4)
Bibliography:
Butchard Patrick, ‘The UN at 80: An overview of the United Nations’ (House of Commons Library, 2025) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10380/ accessed 5 September 2026
International Court of Justice ‘History’ (International Court of Justice, n.d.) https://www.icj-cij.org/history accessed 5 September 2026
John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed, London 1769) section 202
Karen Mingst, ‘International Court of Justice’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica,2026) https://www.britannica.com/topic/International-Court-of-Justice accessed 5 September 2026
Merriam-Webster, ‘International Law’ (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/international%20law accessed 5 September 2026
United Nations, ‘UN Charter’ (United Nations, n.d.) https://policy.un.org/en/accountability/un-charter accessed 5 September 2026
[1] John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed, London 1769) section 202
[2] Merriam-Webster, ‘International Law’ (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/international%20law accessed 5 September 2026
[3] United Nations, ‘UN Charter’ (United Nations, n.d.) https://policy.un.org/en/accountability/un-charter accessed 5 September 2026
[4] Butchard Patrick, ‘The UN at 80: An overview of the United Nations’ (House of Commons Library, 2025) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10380/ accessed 5 September 2026
[5] International Court of Justice ‘History’ (International Court of Justice, n.d.) https://www.icj-cij.org/history accessed 5 September 2026
[6] Karen Mingst, ‘International Court of Justice’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2026) https://www.britannica.com/topic/International-Court-of-Justice accessed 5 September 2026
[7] Ibid
[8] Nicaragua v Unite States [1986] ICJ Reports 1986, p.14
[9] Collins Dictionary, ‘Imperial Presidency’ (Collins Online Dictionary, n.d.) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/imperial-system
[10] Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (San Francisco, 1945) art 2 s 4
[11] Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (San Francisco, 1945) art 1 s 2
[12] United Nations ‘US actions in Venezuela constitute a dangerous precedent: Guterres’ (UN News, 2026) https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/01/1166698 accessed 5 September 2026
[13] Security Council Report ‘The Veto’ (Security Council Report, 2015) https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php accessed 5 September 2026
[14] United States v Noriega 746 F. Supp. 1506 (1990)
[15] Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice (San Francisco, 1945) art 2 s 4
[16] Ukraine v Russian Federation ICJ Reports 2022
[17] Learning Resources Inc. v Trump 607 U.S (2026)
[18] Constitutional Reform Act [2005] s1 (4)
[19] R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC41
