Credit: Pixabay

The contemporary international scenario reveals a moment of profound instability, in which economic, strategic, and geopolitical interests have often overlapped with the principles that have historically underpinned international law. Amid armed conflicts, territorial disputes, and external interventions, it has become inevitable to revisit the debate on the limits of the actions of major powers, especially with regard to the intervention of the United States in other sovereign states.

One of the fundamental pillars of modern international law is the principle of state sovereignty. Enshrouded in the United Nations Charter, this principle establishes that each state has the right to self-determination and should be free from external interference in its internal affairs. Intervention, whether military, political, or economic in nature, should be an extreme exception, justified only in strictly defined situations and, preferably, legitimised by international consensus.

Historically, interventions promoted by the United States have often been presented under the guise of defending democracy, protecting human rights, or maintaining regional stability. However, a closer analysis shows that such actions are rarely dissociated from strategic and economic interests, especially in regions rich in natural resources or considered geopolitically and economically relevant, such as Latin America.

This scenario raises legitimate questions about selectivity in the application of international law. When norms and principles are relativised according to political convenience, an environment of legal uncertainty is created at the global level. The central problem lies not only in the act of intervention itself, but in the precedent it sets. History shows that once precedents are established, they tend to be invoked by other powers to justify similar actions, even in different contexts.

The weakening of international law resulting from this unequal application poses a real risk to global balance. International institutions lose credibility, treaties are stripped of their normative force, and smaller states become increasingly vulnerable to the logic of imposition and force. In this context, the law runs the risk of being replaced by the supremacy of economic and military power, compromising the very idea of a rules-based international order.

Given this situation, it is essential to reaffirm the centrality of dialogue, international responsibility, and historical memory. Respect for international law should not be understood merely as a formal legal requirement, but as an ethical commitment to the dignity of peoples and the preservation of state sovereignty. Only by strengthening international norms and recognising their limits can we avoid repeating historical mistakes and contain more serious deviations in the international system.

The discussion about US intervention, therefore, goes beyond isolated or circumstantial cases. It is a structural debate about the future of international law and the international community’s ability to preserve a minimum balance in a world increasingly driven by power struggles and the relentless pursuit of resources.

Maya Nascimento

Lawyer, criminologist and specialist in psychoanalysis and psychopathology.

Translator and contributor to Brussels Diplomatic, she works in the fields of law and critical analysis of social and institutional relations.

Languages: English, Italian