There is No Supreme International Law

The much-cherished rules-based international legal order did not experience a festive season.

Recent historic events have emphatically demonstrated this.

Venezuela and Somaliland

On 26 December 2025, the Israeli government recognised Somaliland as a state and set the wheels in motion to establish relations between that country and Israel. On 3 January 2026, the United States (US) carried out a blitzkrieg operation against the Maduro regime in Venezuela, crippling the country's military, and snatching its now former president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife from the country to stand trial in New York on drug-related charges, among other things.

Plans are apparently now afoot to establish a new US-friendly government in Venezuela. Eduardo González Urrutia, who dissidents confidently claim was the winner of the 2024 presidential election, could likely be the new president. Gonzalez is currently in Spain, where he fled after Maduro refused to accept defeat and issued an arrest warrant against him.

Time will tell whether the US will succeed in this. What is certain is that the US military intervention was spectacularly successful. All the primary objectives were achieved within a matter of hours without any American losses in manpower or weapons.

Venezuela's military was defenceless. This is significant, because the country's military is exceptionally well-equipped with Russian weaponry. However, it was no match for the American war machine.

Consequently, the American action was also a setback for Russia, because Russia earns big money from arms exports, on the perception that its weapons are superior. That perception is now gone.

China is likely to suffer even greater damage. It kept Venezuela afloat financially and was compensated with cheap oil from the country. This has now ended, as the US is set to reclaim a dominant role in Venezuela's oil industry.

Neither Russia nor China can help Venezuela militarily. At least in the Western Hemisphere, they are no match for the US. This causes great reputational damage for the two powers and is, at the same time, an ominous warning to the African National Congress (ANC) to be realistic about expecting Russia or China to save it in an emergency situation.

Outrage

Outrage is the only sanction available to the US's opponents. They can issue angry statements and speak out against the US in the United Nations (UN) Security Council and, like President Cyril Ramaphosa, demand the release of Maduro. However, there is no real action against the US, because no one has the power to do more than talk.

The same applies to the reaction to Israel’s recognition of Somaliland. It has been condemned from many quarters, including by the African Union (AU) and by the ANC. However, nothing can be done about it. After all, Somaliland has been a de facto and relatively stable independent state for the past 35 years. Supported by Israel (apparently by the US and probably also by some Arab states), little can be done about Somaliland’s status or about Israel’s recognition and its ever-closer ties with the country.

Your Actions Violate International Law

The main objection to the US and Israel is that their actions breach international law – the so-called rules-based international order; moreover, that they disregard ius cogens, that is, the most fundamental norms of international law, from which no deviation should be countenanced.

The US, with its invasion of Venezuela, has disrupted the foundations of modern international law by violating Venezuela's national sovereignty and territorial integrity. In doing so, the US has also disregarded several of the core provisions of the UN Charter, more specifically Article 2(4), which states:

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.

On behalf of Maduro, it will likely be argued in court that he enjoys diplomatic immunity as a head of state, which exempts him from prosecution. However, the prosecution will present a certificate from the executive branch stating that the US government never recognised Maduro as head of state and government because he rigged the previous election and was therefore not truly elected.

His lawyers may also argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to try him, as Maduro's presence in court was the result of an illegal kidnapping. However, the court will rule, as it did in the case of Manuel Noriega, that the US executive branch secured Maduro’s presence in the course of performing foreign relations. Under the Act of State Doctrine, which is derived from English law, the court has no jurisdiction to rule on this.

The US Forcefully Serves its Own Interests

However, all of this is merely irrelevant legal chatter, removed from what is really at stake. Which is that the US government uses its power to protect and advance what it perceives to be US interests. Its actions are therefore not guided by what existing international law allegedly prescribes, but by what US interests dictate.

The Trump administration leaves no doubt about that. The recently published National Security Strategy gives preference to the Western Hemisphere and unequivocally revives the Monroe Doctrine, which dates to 1823. Accordingly, the US, if possible, with the cooperation of all other states in the Americas – North, Central and South – will not allow any interference from elsewhere that could harm the US or any other American state. And when there is interference, it will act forcefully – including militarily – to repel it.

Venezuela has long been under a vicious socialist government that has given China and Russia a foothold in the Western Hemisphere, threatening US interests and resulting in millions displaced from Venezuela, leading to social and economic instability in the region. From Washington’s perspective, this cannot be tolerated and will be countered, as has been done now.

Other states with leftist governments that wish to create closer ties with Russia and China and subvert US interests in the Western Hemisphere, such as Cuba and Colombia, can expect similar American pressure. At the same time, Greenland will be drawn deeper into American influence. This will be done to try to neutralise Russian and Chinese influence in the region, which the US fears with good reason.

Sphere of Influence

Russia is acting similarly. The expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) ever closer to its borders over the past thirty years is regarded as violating its vital interests, especially since it has been invaded twice from Western Europe in the past two centuries (by Napoleon and Hitler). Hence, it initiated the war in Ukraine.

China completes the pattern. It is also establishing its influence in its immediate vicinity in the South China Sea and finds Taiwan a hostile presence on its doorstep. During the first week of this year, China carried out intimidating military exercises around Taiwan. However, China has not (yet) gone as far as the US in Venezuela simply because it is not as strong as the US and considers possible responses too high a risk to carry out an attack.

Even weaker states such as South Africa have territorial spheres of influence. However, South Africa's has deteriorated considerably, partly due to its weakened military and generally shrinking profile. For example, a few years ago, South Africa was powerless to restore order in Cabo Delgado in Mozambique. The much smaller but effective Rwandan military did this. The South African military was also no match for the M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the past two years and was forced to withdraw in disgrace.

South Africa is limited to the typical actions of a weak state and can therefore only speak, whether with its case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, or its cry for help that the Security Council, heaven knows how, must act against the US over the Venezuela intervention.

Israel Too

The Israeli government's recognition of Somaliland drew widespread criticism from both the AU and the South African government, who also complained that Israel (and Somaliland) is flouting international law.

This concerns the supposed inviolability of existing state borders in terms of the uti possidetisiuris principle, which is also reflected in Article 4(b) of the Constitutive Act of the AU. According to that provision, the boundaries of member states as they existed at independence must be strictly maintained.

Somaliland has, however, existed since 1991 as a de facto independent state, separate from Somalia, of which it was a part until that point. However, the existence of Somaliland is offensive to Somalia. Somalia considers Somaliland to be an integral part of Somalia. No state, especially no African state, recognises Somaliland. But Somaliland, unlike Somalia, is a stable country with living conditions better than those in Somalia, which is often considered a failed state.

Regardless of the condemnation of Somaliland, it continues undisturbed, and there are apparently no forces strong enough to undo it and drive it back into Somalia. With Israel's recognition of Somaliland, its position is further strengthened.

The AU and the ANC are outraged by this. Israel and Somaliland are unperturbed by this and equally unperturbed by what international law allegedly determines on the issue.

Somaliland welcomes the recognition because it strengthens its international status and will likely lead to more states recognising it. In addition, Israel is likely to establish economic interests in Somaliland that will benefit Somaliland's citizens and lead to security enhancements for the country.

Israel, for its part, of course, has its own reasons for the recognition. One of them is quite possibly that one of its great enemies, the Houthi rebels – an agent of the beleaguered Islamic regime in Iran – operates just across the Gulf of Aden from Somaliland in Yemen. They fired missiles at Israel during the Gaza war and disrupted Red Sea shipping. An established Israeli presence in Somaliland allows Israel to act much more easily against this and also put pressure on Iran.

What international law would determine about the inviolability of state borders, and however much it might condemn the recognition of breakaway states, is really of quite little concern for Israel in these circumstances. The strengthening of its geopolitical and military position is of infinitely more importance to it than a rule of no concrete interest, the breaking of which yet holds no major consequences, to Somaliland and Israel. Their interests, rather than international law, are clearly the decisive factor.

International Law?

This does not mean that there is no international law and that norms of international law are never of any moment. Norms of international law function very well in many areas. There are countless interstate treaties that form part of international law, which are observed on the basis of consensus. Rules of diplomatic immunity are similarly usually faithfully observed, as are norms relating to territorial waters, airspace, international navigation, and even norms of the methods of warfare and the like.

However, the norms of international law are no match for great powers that act – including violently – to protect what they consider to be their essential interests.

This does not only apply to a great power like the US. It also applies to Russia, which is intervening militarily in Ukraine because it fears NATO power, which has been encroaching for almost thirty years now. Against this background, its security interests are infinitely more important to it than a norm of international law – in this case, the so-called inviolability of the territorial integrity of states (Ukraine in this case).

This is equally true for China with regard to Taiwan and the expansion of its influence over its front pool in the South China Sea. China has not yet taken over Taiwan militarily because of a power calculation, not a calculation of international law.

Balance of Power

Precisely this scenario, namely how China must adjust its actions according to the counterbalancing forces posed by its adversaries, reveals what primarily determines the actions of great powers, namely not abstract norms of international law, but counterpower – the reality of counterposing powers balancing and restraining each other. Precisely this balance of power (and not some abstract norm of international law) was crucial in ensuring world peace between the largest nuclear powers, the US and the Soviet Union, after World War II. These powers could engage in limited, collateral wars through agents and vassals.

However, they never dared to use nuclear weapons on each other, because both knew that they faced certain destruction (mutually assured destruction – MAD – as the adage goes).

The impression is often created that international law regulates all aspects of interstate and other global relations, that deviations from it do occur now and then, but that this does not detract from the fact that a foolproof and comprehensive international law is genuinely in existence.

This is not correct, because interstate relations, especially those between great powers, are determined by another category of considerations – not by the rules of international law. That category is the actions of the great powers in accordance with their interests and what counter-power allows them to do. Interest-based action under the consideration of the balance of forces, if you will.

Second Category

The US military action against the Maduro regime must be assessed against the backdrop of this second category of considerations.

You can indignantly condemn the Americans for their alleged violations of law against Venezuela, the Russians for their violations of law regarding Ukraine, the Chinese for their illegal intimidation of Taiwan, and the Israelis for their recognition of Somaliland in contravention of international law. And you can go on about what bad guys they are because of their violations of the law.

However, that is essentially irrelevant for understanding what is going on, because we find ourselves here, not in the realm of law and legal relations, but in the realm of power and power relations.

This is not a new phenomenon. There has never been a fully rules-based international order, and the post-Cold War pretence of one is now being overturned by Putin, Xi, Trump, and Netanyahu, along with numerous smaller regional powers in their local spheres, and likely many more to come as realpolitik reasserts itself over jurispolitik.

International relations have been partly determined and guided by international law for a very long time. But only partly. In the first place, it was and is a question of interests and power. What has happened over the past decades is that the belief in a general rules-based international order has been preached and naively embraced with much greater evangelical fervour than ever before.

The unfolding revelation that it is, in fact, a false order and that there is no supreme international law is causing great distress to its most ardent adherents. They likely have far more distress in store for them as the international system is reshaped in the years and decades ahead.