This article is meant to be both a reminder that we have international laws prohibiting unilateral armed aggressions, yet at the same time we are missing adequate consequences that help minimize the incentives when these laws are ignored.  

Rules and consequences. Everyone knows that these basic principles have always been the cornerstones of society. In fact, social interaction is unthinkable without either. Rules immediately cease to be meaningful without adequate consequences. Small children are supposed to listen to their parents, drivers are supposed to follow the street laws, and nations must uphold the international law. If they do not learn that negative consequences follow these rules, then they will do as they please. This is the reason for which Russia believes it is worthwhile to invade Ukraine, and also for which the United States and Israel believe  it profitable to attack Iran.

In the immediate aftermaths of the second world war, the United Nations Charter was written and designed to prevent precisely these attacks from happening – aggressions that are based on the unilateral action of nations that are only acting in their own interest. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres readily condemned these attacks, and cited Article 2 of the United Nations Charter prohibiting “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

However, at no point was there a clear hint of consequences in any of the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres speeches. As we know, even children cease to abide by their parents rules if their misdemeanours carry no consequences. Why should we expect this behaviour to be any different for the likes of presidents? After Venezuela, Trump is trying to extend his influence into Iran. He already indicated that Greenland and Canada, Mexico, the Panama Canal, the Gaza Strip, and Cuba would be next on his list. Where would someone like him stop without consequences? How will the leaders of other countries act if they also perceive that these rules are without consequences?

However, Articles 41 and 42 in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter give much room for consequences. According to Article 41 an aggressor country could be faced with a partial or complete interruption of economic relations. If this is not enough to stop the aggression, then Article 42 allows the use of armed force. One may be inclined to ask as to why are there no international demands to invoke these articles? The simple reason is that two of those who hold veto rights in the United Nations, namely Russia and the United States, are also the aggressor nations. Without doubt it is time to rethink the veto rights of countries in the United Nations. If children were able to veto their parents’ enforcement of rules, then they would not be inclined to follow them either. An international organisation that is meant to help uphold world peace has lost its usefulness in the moment that aggressor nations themselves are able to veto the organisation’s means to enforce peace.

Someone like Trump, who himself has used the threat of economic sanctions multiple times, would certainly understand the price of his actions much better if exactly those sanctions were used against him by invoking Article 41. If the international community would immediately apply drastic economic consequences on aggressor nations, then this would very much reduce the incentives to unilaterally invade countries.

In addition, it is necessary that personal consequences follow those unilateral actions. The International Court of Justice in The Hague has been established for that purpose. It is supposed to prosecute people for war crimes. Unilaterally attacking a country without the consent of the United Nations is a war crime. There is not a doubt in the world that, by international law, both Putin and Trump must be prosecuted by the International Court of Justice.

Leaders and countries must be held accountable for their choices. Whether it is Putin or Trump or anyone else – if they do not act for the common good, and if they decide to unilaterally inflict harm on others, then the international community must, firstly, prevent this and, secondly, bring these people to justice. The rules have to apply to everyone, and this only works if there are also consequences.