International Law Or International Might?

INTRODUCTION

For decades, skeptics have asked whether international law is truly “law” at all, and whether the world has any real will to enforce its principles.

Although several authors have attempted to answer this question, recent events have so far brought it back to the floor of international law arguments once again. The capture of Venezuela’s president by the United States, the escalating Iran crisis, and Donald Trump’s renewed threats to seize Greenland have yet again, exposed deep fractures in how international law is upheld. These incidents give weight to a cynical whisper that has long circulated among international law observers that “Might makes right, and weakness is a sin in the community of nations.”

But these aforementioned events aren’t isolated incidents. History shows us that the boundaries and principles of international law, particularly regarding national sovereignty, have been bent, stretched, and out-rightly violated before, often by the very nations entrusted with maintaining global order.

In this piece, I’ll examine key moments when powerful nations have disregarded international law, how the world has responded (or rather, failed to respond), and the justifications these violators have offered for their actions. Finally, I’ll explore the dangerous precedent being set if the international community, and the UN in particular, continues to allow a powerful few to redraw the rules as we know it, at will.

The Principle of Sovereignty And Non-intervention

The principles of sovereignty and non-intervention stand as cornerstones of the international legal order. These principles ensure that every sovereign state has the right to conduct its affairs without outside interference¹, forming what the International Court of Justice has described as bedrock elements of customary international law²

Sovereignty encompasses the whole body of rights and attributes which a state possesses in its territory, to the exclusion of all other states, and also in its relations with other states³. This isn’t merely theoretical, it’s the foundation upon which peaceful international relations rest.

The United Nations Charter makes this explicit. Article 2(4) provides that: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This prohibition is unequivocal; No exceptions were carved out for powerful nations, no allowances made for strategic interests, no waivers granted for geopolitical convenience.

But what does non-intervention actually mean in practice? The International Court of Justice clarified this in its landmark 1986 Nicaragua v. United States judgment⁴, explaining that the principle involves matters in which each state is permitted, by the principle of state sovereignty, to decide freely, including the choice of political, economic, social and cultural systems, and the formulation of foreign policy.

The Nicaragua case itself is instructive. The Court found that the United States’ financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistical support to the contras constituted a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention. The Court emphasized that the element of coercion defines and forms the very essence of prohibited intervention. When a state uses force, whether directly through military action or indirectly through support for armed activities within another state, it crosses a line that international law forbids.

Even earlier, in the 1949 Corfu Channel case⁵, the ICJ regarded the alleged right of intervention as a manifestation of a policy of force that cannot find a place in international law. The Court was clear: between independent states, respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations.

The above however aren’t isolated rulings. The principle of non-intervention has been reaffirmed repeatedly. In the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (DRC v. Uganda, 2005)⁶, the Court noted that the principle prohibits a state from intervening, directly or indirectly, with or without armed force, in support of internal opposition within another state.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols further reinforce these protections by regulating the conduct of armed conflict and protecting civilians and political leaders from unlawful targeting. Together, these legal instruments create what should be an impenetrable shield around state sovereignty.

The law, then, is crystal clear. Intervention, whether through force, coercion, or interference in another state’s inherent sovereign functions is prohibited. So the question is not whether these principles exist. They do, unambiguously. The question is whether the world has the will to enforce them.

Instances Where The Principles Of Sovereignty And Non-intervention Have Been Eroded

Historical Chronicles:

History provides us with a sobering ledger. Time and again, powerful nations have violated the sovereignty of weaker states, offered justifications that ranged from creative legal arguments to outright defiance, and faced international responses that amounted to little more than diplomatic theater.

i. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq: When the Security Council Said No

In 2003, the United States, alongside the United Kingdom and Spain, attempted to secure an explicit UN Security Council authorization for military action in Iraq, but failed⁷. The “second resolution” was brought up, but was later withdrawn, when it became clear that several permanent members would cast “no” votes.

The US proceeded anyway, arguing that previous Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 14⁸, passed unanimously in November 2002, which made clear that Iraq’s status quo was illegal, provided sufficient authorization⁹. The coalition’s letter to the Council stated that operations were “authorized under existing Council resolutions, including resolutions 678 (1990) and 687 (1991)”¹⁰.

How did the world respond? At an urgent Security Council meeting, Iran deplored the fact that diplomatic efforts had been prematurely aborted, and a sovereign UN member had become subject to outright invasion. China stated that NATO’s military strikes amounted to a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter and accepted norms in international law. France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war vociferously¹¹.

But what concrete action followed these condemnations? None. No boots on the ground were deployed to defend Iraq’s sovereignty. No member state severed diplomatic ties with the invading coalition. No meaningful economic sanctions were imposed on the US or UK. The international community held an emergency meeting, aired grievances, and watched as Baghdad fell.

ii. Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: Sanctions Without Teeth

In February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it, marking the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian war¹². Russia initially denied involvement, despite armed soldiers in uniforms without insignia occupying strategic sites across Crimea, although Putin later admitted they were Russian troops¹³.

Russia’s justification? The Russian government justified the referendum and annexation as an act of self-determination, arguing that the Crimean population actually voted to join Russia [although reports indicates that less than half of Crimea voted in the referendum]¹⁴. Russia’s seizure of Crimea violated, among other agreements, the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and the 1997 Treaty on Friendship between Ukraine and Russia.

The international response was more robust than in Iraq, but only marginally so. Sanctions were put in place including asset freezes and travel bans on Russian officials; the G8 summit was cancelled and Russia’s membership suspended¹⁵. The EU imposed restrictive measures targeting specific sectors of the Russian economy, including state-owned banks, arms embargoes, and restrictions on sales of sensitive technology for the oil industry¹⁶.

The annexation led to G8 members suspending Russia from the group and introducing sanctions; the UN General Assembly rejected the referendum and annexation¹⁷. Yet Crimea remains under Russian control today. The 2014 sanctions did impose costs, with Russia missing a potential $479 billion in foreign investment, around a third of Russian GDP¹⁸. But the sanctions ultimately did not force Russia to retreat from its positions.

The UN passed resolutions. The West imposed sanctions. Russia shrugged and kept Crimea.

iii. China’s South China Sea Expansion: Defying International Tribunals

Perhaps no case better illustrates the toothlessness of international law than China’s rejection of the 2016 South China Sea tribunal ruling. On July 12, 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the Philippines on most submissions, clarifying that China’s historic rights claims within the “nine-dash line” have no lawful effect unless entitled to under UNCLOS¹⁹.

The tribunal’s findings were devastating to China’s position as it had held that China had interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration, prohibited fishing by Philippine vessels within the Philippine EEZ, and constructed artificial islands without the Philippines’ authorization. It further held that China violated its marine environmental protection obligations by causing “severe harm to the coral reef environment” with land reclamation activities²⁰.

China’s response? China stated the award is “null and void and has no binding force” and continued to pursue bilateral discussions, refusing to accept the ruling. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin described the court as a “law-abusing tribunal” engaging in a “farce”; and called it “merely a piece of paper”²¹

The international response? The Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative’s tracker suggests eight governments publicly called for the ruling to be respected, 35 made positive statements but stopped short of calling for implementation, and eight publicly rejected it²² .

No military intervention. No economic sanctions. No severed diplomatic relations. China continues building artificial islands while the tribunal’s ruling gathers dust in The Hague.

A Pattern Emerges

Across these instances, a disturbing pattern crystallizes. Powerful nations violate international law. They offer justifications, sometimes legal arguments, sometimes appeals to necessity, sometimes outright defiance. The international community responds with statements, resolutions, and selective sanctions that rarely change behavior. The UN Security Council, paralyzed by the veto power of its permanent members, watches as its own principles are trampled.

The message is unmistakable: international law binds the weak, but merely inconveniences the strong.

Recent Escalations: The Pattern Intensifies (2022-2026)

The historical violations pale in comparison to the brazenness of recent years, where powerful nations have not merely bent international law, but have shattered it openly, daring the world to respond.

i. The United States’ Capture of Venezuela’s President: Sovereignty Obliterated

This incident came as an act so audacious that it shocked even seasoned observers of international law. On January 3, 2026, President Trump announced that the U.S. military had launched strikes across Venezuela that culminated in the capture and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores²³

Maduro and Flores were transferred to New York to face narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges.

The justification? The US alleged that Maduro stole the presidential poll of 2024, that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzales Urrutia was the true victor, and that Venezuelan authorities falsified election results. President Trump said the United States will “run” Venezuela until a transition takes place²⁴ .

This wasn’t a covert operation. It was one that was announced proudly from Mar-a-Lago. The UN Secretary-General said that U.S. actions set a “dangerous precedent,”²⁵ while European Union officials urged restraint and respect for international law²⁶ .

Latin American responses split predictably along ideological lines. Some governments, including those of the three most populous countries (Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia), criticized the action²⁷ , while others, such as Argentina, Ecuador, and Peru, supported the move²⁸ .

But what concrete action followed? The UN convened emergency meetings. Countries issued statements. And Venezuela’s government collapsed as American forces occupied Caracas. No coalition formed to defend Venezuelan sovereignty. No member state deployed troops. The most powerful violation of the non-intervention principle in decades was met with… words.

ii. Trump’s Threats Against Greenland: NATO Allies Under Pressure

If capturing a Latin American president wasn’t enough, the Trump administration turned its attention to NATO itself. Trump has threatened to “do something” on Greenland “whether they like it or not,” claiming he does not “need international law” and that it “may be a choice” for the US between seizing Greenland or preserving NATO.

Trump’s justification centers on security. He claims “If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland,” arguing the US needs Greenland for Arctic security²⁹.

When European NATO members deployed small contingents to Greenland for a defensive exercise, Trump threatened 10 percent tariffs on goods from eight countries starting February 1, rising to 25 percent on June 1, to remain until “the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland” by the United States.

The response? Eight European countries issued a joint statement warning that Trump’s threats “undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral”³⁰ . Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that an attack on Greenland would end NATO³¹ .

Yet Greenland remains under intense American pressure. NATO, the defensive alliance built to protect members from external aggression, now faces an existential threat from its most powerful member.

iii. North Korea’s Ballistic Missiles: Routine Violations, Routine Condemnations

North Korea provides perhaps the clearest example of how meaningless international condemnation has become. On January 4, 2026, North Korea launched what it claimed to be hypersonic missiles into the Sea of Japan, marking its first test of the year³² . The missiles flew approximately 900 kilometres, violating United Nations Security Council resolutions.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un stated that nuclear deterrence is necessary due to “recent geopolitical crisis and complicated international events,³³ ” likely referring to the U.S. military’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The response? Japan’s Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi condemned the launches, saying they “threaten the peace and security of our region and the international community,” adding that Japan was coordinating closely with the United States and South Korea³⁴ .

And then? Nothing. No military response. No new sanctions that hadn’t already been imposed dozens of times before. North Korea filed the condemnations away with all the others and continued its missile program unimpeded. The pattern had repeated so many times it barely made headlines.

The Unavoidable Truth

These recent cases illuminate a harsh reality: international law has become a suggestion for the powerful and a cage for the weak. Russia invades Ukraine and faces sanctions it slowly circumvents. The United States captures a head of state in a military operation and announces it will “run” that country. Trump threatens to invade a NATO ally and impose tariffs on those who resist. North Korea launches missiles in open defiance of UN resolutions.

And what does the international community do? It meets. It condemns. It issues press releases. Occasionally, it imposes sanctions that are either too weak to matter or so easily evaded they become mere diplomatic theater.

The law exists. The violations are clear. But enforcement? That depends entirely on who’s breaking the rules.

Impending Effects Of Allowing The Powerful Few To Redraw The Lines Of International Law & What The Rest Of The World Can Do

The Slippery Slope to Chaos

The erosion of international law’s foundational principles creates a dangerous precedent that threatens the entire global order. When powerful nations violate sovereignty with impunity, they don’t just harm their immediate victims, they fundamentally undermine the legal architecture that prevents international relations from devolving into a Hobbesian state of nature where might makes right.

History teaches us that selective enforcement of international law creates a permission structure for future violations. If the United States can capture Venezuela’s president without consequence, what stops other regional powers from doing the same? If Russia can annex Crimea and invade Ukraine while remaining a permanent Security Council member, what message does that send to nations with territorial ambitions? If China can ignore international tribunal rulings with zero repercussions, why would any nation bother submitting disputes to judicial resolution?

The implications are stark: we are witnessing the gradual transformation of international law from a binding legal framework into mere diplomatic suggestion. As Poland’s representative noted after reading comments under a recent UN social media post where numerous users called for urgent reform, “Central to these calls was the use of the veto,” warning that “ignoring them is a recipe for the Organization’s irrelevance”35 .

This deterioration creates cascading risks. Smaller nations, watching powerful states operate with impunity, will conclude that international law offers them no protection. This could trigger regional arms races as countries seek security through military strength rather than international guarantees. Border disputes that might have been resolved peacefully through legal mechanisms will instead be settled by force. The principle that “all states are equal under the law” becomes a mockery when enforcement depends entirely on political power.

Consider the regional implications. African regional organizations have become custodians of international peace and security on the continent as a result of a vacuum, out of necessity and due to their unique placement and expertise in regional matters. If global institutions fail to enforce international law, regional organizations may feel compelled to take unilateral action, further fragmenting the international legal order.

The ultimate danger is a return to a pre-UN world where great powers carved spheres of influence, smaller nations existed at their mercy, and devastating conflicts erupted with regularity because no framework existed to peacefully resolve disputes. We built the United Nations and the international legal system precisely to prevent such a world. Allowing it to crumble through neglect and selective enforcement would be catastrophic.

Is Reform Possible? Confronting Hard Truths

Before discussing solutions, we must confront an uncomfortable reality: meaningful reform of the UN Security Council faces near-insurmountable obstacles. Formal amendment of the UN Charter has proven nearly impossible, because it requires the unanimous consent of the five permanent members³⁵. The very nations whose power needs constraining must agree to constrain themselves, an obvious logical impossibility.

The veto power is controversial; supporters state that the United Nations would break down if it attempted to enforce binding action against a permanent member, and Russia and China regard the veto as a promoter of international stability and a check against military interventions³⁶ .

As Russia’s representative bluntly stated, the veto has saved the UN from being “drawn into dubious adventures,” and without it, the Council would become just a body for “uncontrolled stamping of documents beneficial to a narrow group of countries”³⁷ .

Yet the status quo is untenable. Since 2022’s adoption of the “veto initiative” resolution, 17 vetoes have triggered 17 General Assembly meetings, with many speakers frustrated that those meetings had little tangible impact. The question isn’t whether reform is needed, it’s whether reform is achievable without the consent of those who benefit most from the current system.

Pragmatic Solutions: Working Within and Around the System

Given these constraints, the international community must pursue a multi-track approach that combines incremental reforms with creative workarounds:

1. Regulate, Don’t Abolish: The Veto Restraint Movement

Since abolishing the veto is logically impossible, efforts should focus on constraining its use. The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group’s Code of Conduct urges permanent members voluntarily to refrain from using their veto in situations involving mass atrocity crimes³⁸ .

As of now, 107 countries support France and Mexico’s 2015 Joint Declaration aimed at regulating veto use in cases of mass atrocities³⁹.

Proposals include extending conflict-of-interest abstention logic, creating carve-outs for mass atrocities and humanitarian access, and mandating written justification and ex post oversight. While voluntary, these measures create political costs for veto abuse. When permanent members must publicly justify blocking humanitarian intervention, their actions face greater scrutiny.

2. Expanding Security Council Membership to Reflect Current Realities

France supports the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan as permanent members, as well as a stronger presence for African countries41. Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the African Group, demanded no fewer than two permanent Council seats with veto power if it is to be maintained, and five additional non-permanent seats for Africa, calling it “not merely a question of proportional representation but correcting a structural and historical injustice”⁴⁰ .

An expanded Council, potentially up to 25 members would dilute the influence of current permanent members and make the body more representative. While new permanent members might not receive veto power initially, their presence would potentially create greater accountability and reduce the perception that the Council serves only the interests of 1945’s victors.

3. Economic and Diplomatic Costs: Making Violations Expensive

Sanctions and diplomatic isolation must become more comprehensive and consistently applied. The response to Russia’s Ukraine invasion, though insufficient to reverse the aggression, demonstrates that coordinated economic pressure can impose real costs.

The key is consistency: violations must trigger automatic, predetermined responses rather than ad hoc deliberations that allow political considerations to water down consequences.

This requires smaller and medium-sized nations to coordinate their responses independent of permanent Security Council members. When the US violates international law, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America must impose costs. When Russia violates international law, the same coalition must act. When China violates international law, the response must be equally robust. Selective enforcement based on political allegiance only reinforces the cynicism that international law is a tool of power rather than a genuine constraint.

The Uncomfortable Truth and the Path Forward

Let us be honest: none of these solutions will fully solve the problem. The fundamental issue; that the most powerful nations have veto power over efforts to constrain them remains. International law will continue to bind the weak more than the strong.

But the alternative to imperfect reform is not perfect justice, it’s the complete collapse of the international legal order. Every incremental improvement matters. Every constraint on veto abuse matters. Every instance where violations face real consequences matters. Every regional organization that successfully protects its member’s matters.

The rest of the world, particularly the Global South which bears the brunt of great power violations must recognize that waiting for the UN Security Council to reform itself is futile. Instead, nations must build parallel mechanisms: stronger regional organizations, coordinated diplomatic and economic responses, and persistent use of the General Assembly as a counterweight to Security Council paralysis.

International law may be imperfect, but it’s the only framework preventing international relations from becoming purely transactional exercises in power projection. It was Venezuela today, and Greenland might be tomorrow. If the international community, particularly developing nations, middle powers, and regional organizations doesn’t mobilize now to defend these principles, they may soon discover that international law has become nothing more than a quaint relic from a more idealistic age.

The choice is clear: reform what we can, work around what we can’t, and fight for every inch of legal protection we can preserve. Because once international law is fully reduced to international might, no nation outside the handful of great powers will have any protection at all.

---

About Author

1. Princeton University “Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs)” available at https://pesd.princeton.edu/1 accessed January 2026 [↩]
2. Syed Hammad Khan e’tal [2021] “The Concept of State Sovereignty in International Law” available at
   https://www.researchgate.net/publicLaw accessed January 2026 [↩]
3. Royal C. Gardner – Fordham Environmental Law Review [2011] “Respecting Sovereignty” available at https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/=elr accessed January 2026 [↩]
4. The ICJ Judgment [November 1984] “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)” available at https://www.icj-cij.org/cnts accessed January 2026 [↩]
5. The ICJ Judgment [April 1949] “Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania)” available at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/1 accessed January 2026 [↩]
6. The ICJ Judgment [2005] “Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)” available at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/116 accessed January 2026 [↩]
7. Wikipedia [2003] “2003 United States–British–Spanish Draft Resolution on Iraq” available at
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wikq accessed January 2026 [↩]
8. The Economic Times [November 2022] “France voices support for India, Germany, Brazil, Japan as permanent UNSC members” available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nedr accessed January 2026 [↩]
9. Michael E. O’Hanlon – Brookings [September 2004] “Why the War Wasn’t Illegal” available at https://www.brookings.edu/articl/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
10. Reliefweb [March 2003] “Iraq: Letter from the United States of America to the UN Security Council (S/2003/351)” available at https://reliefweb.int/re51 accessed January 2026 [↩]
11. UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases [March 2003] “Security Council Holds First Debate On Iraq Since Start Of Military Action; Speakers Call For Halt To Aggression, Immediate Withdrawal” available at https://press.un.org/en/2.htm accessed January 2026 [↩]
12. Wikipedia “2014 Russian annexation of Crimea” available at https://en.wikipedia.org accessed January 2026 [↩]
13. Garl Schreck – RadioFreeEurope-RadioLiberty [February 2019] “From ‘Not Us’ To ‘Why Hide It?’: How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It” available at https://www.rferl.org/a/.html accessed January 2026 [↩]
14. Steven Pifer-Brookings [March 2020] “Commentary: Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation” available at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
15. Zeke J. Miller-Time Magazine [March 2014] “World Leaders Cancel G-8 Summit in Russia After Ukraine Crisis” available at https://time.com/3crisis/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
16. Council of the European Union [2014] “Russia’s war against Ukraine: EU sanctions – Consilium” available at https://www.consilium.euroia/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
17. Margaret Besheer – Voice of America English News [March 2014] “UN General Assembly Rejects Crimea Annexation” available at https://www.voanews.com.html accessed January 2026 [↩]
18. Atlantic Council [May 2021] “The impact of Western sanctions on Russia and how they can be made even more effective” available at https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/ia/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
19. Wikipedia “South China Sea Arbitration” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon accessed January 2026 [↩]
20. Robert D. William – Lawfare [July 2016] “Tribunal Issues Landmark Ruling in South China Sea Arbitration” available at https://www.lawfaremedia.org/arn accessed January 2026 [↩]
21. The South China Sea Issue [July 2016] “Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin at the Press Conference on the White Paper Titled China Adheres to the Position of Settling Through Negotiation the Relevant Disputes Between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea” available at https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/tm accessed January 2016. [↩]
22. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative [July 2023] “Arbitration Support Tracker” available at https://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
23. US Department of War [January 2026] “Trump Announces U.S. Military’s Capture of Maduro” available at https://www.war.gov/News/maduro/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
24. Ibid 22 [↩]
25. UN News [January 2026] “US actions in Venezuela ‘constitute a dangerous precedent’: Guterres” available at https://news.un.org/en/sto698 accessed January 2026 [↩]
26. Politico [January 2026] “EU urges respect for international law after US capture of Maduro” available at https://www.politico.eu/artiro/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
27. EuroNews [January 2026] ” Spain and five Latin American countries reject US attack on Venezuela in joint communiqué” available at https://www.euronews.com/nd-5-latinue accessed January 2026 [↩]
28. America Magazine [January 2026] “Trump’s capture of Maduro has more support in Latin America
    than in the U.S.” available at https://www.americamagazine.org/pa/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
29. ABC News [January 2026] “Breaking down Trump’s argument for acquiring Greenland” available at https://abcnews.go.com/Poli6 accessed January 2026 [↩]
30. PBS News [January 2026] “European leaders warn of ‘downward spiral’ as Trump threatens tariffs over Greenland” available at https://www.pbs.org/nend accessed January 2026 [↩]
31. The Guardian [January 2026] “US attack on Greenland would mean end of NATO, says Danish PM” available at https://www.theguardian.com/w-pm accessed January 2026 [↩]
32. USNI News [January 2026] “North Korea Conducts First Missile Launch of 2026 into Sea of Japan” available at https://news.usni.org/apan accessed January 2026 [↩]
33. NK News [January 2026] “North Korea says it tested hypersonic missiles to deter enemies” available at https://www.nknews.org/2es/ accessed January 2026 [↩]
34. Ministry of Defence-Japan Gov [January 2026] “Extraordinary Press Conference by Defence Minister
    Koizumi on Sunday, January 4, 2026, at 10:01 AM” available at
    https://www.mod.go.jp/en/20s
    urveillance accessed January 2026. South Korea convened an emergency meeting of the National Security Council ((NBC News [January 2026] “Emergency meeting held in South Korea after Kim Jong Un’s sister threatens military action” available at https://www.nbcnews.com9 accessed January 2026 [↩]
35. CHAPTER XVIII, Article 105 UN Charter [↩]
36. Wikipedia “United Nations Security Council veto power” available at https://www.google.com/seare=UTF-8 accessed January 2026 [↩]
37. UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases [November 2023] “Question of Veto Central to General Assembly’s Debate on Security Council Reform, with Speakers Urging Its Limited Use as ‘Weapon of Hatred and War’” available at https://press.un.or3.doc.htm accessed January 2026 [↩]
38. Center for UN Reform Education “UN Security Council Code of Conduct” available at
    https://www.old.centerforunreform.org/qrs accessed January 2026 [↩]
39. France ONU [November 2025] “France calls on those who have not yet done so to join the Franco Mexican initiative” available at https://onu.delegfrance.org/an accessed January 2026 [↩]
40. UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases [November 2025] “True Security Council Reform Crucial to Regaining Public Trust, Improving United Nations Global Image, Speakers Tell General Assembly” available at https://press.un.org/en/2025/ga12731.doc.htm accessed January 2026 [↩]