* Oluwaseun Adedayo Omotoso*
In an age when international relations are increasingly shaped by social media and public statements, a recent threat of military action against Nigeria by the U.S. President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through diplomatic and legal circles. While the diplomatic implications of the statement have generated widespread debates, the legal ramifications are profound and warrant serious analysis.
Below, we shall examine this issue from a legal perspective. In addressing this, we shall pay particular attention to international law, Nigerian sovereignty, and the constitutional limits of the powers of the President of the United States.
Violation of National Sovereignty
The foremost legal principle that comes to mind in considering the utterances of President Trump is the sovereign equality of states, which is a cornerstone of international law, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations expressly obligates all UN members to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Nicaragua v. United States[1] case, clarified that a violation of Article 2(4) occurs not only with the use of force but also with the threat of force. A public declaration by an influential figure within a state, like a president, could be interpreted as a policy intention. This potentially crosses this legal threshold. Hence, a public declaration of the possibility of military action in Nigeria would qualify as a threat of force under the U.N. Charter.
For Nigeria, a sovereign nation and a fellow UN member, such a threat is a direct legal affront to its territorial integrity.
When Can Force Be Lawfully Used?
The UN Charter provides only two legitimate exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force, and these instances will be examined as follows:
- Self-defence against an armed attack(Article 51).
The Charter permits the use of force in defending the territorial integrity of one’s nation when such nation comes under attack by another.
- Authorization by the UN Security Council:
The United Nations may, in deserving circumstances, authorize the use of force under Chapter VII of the Charter for actions necessary to “maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Under international law, threats of force are subject to the same legal restrictions as the use of actual force. The International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) ranks threats of force as being equal to actual deployment of force.[2]
Given the above, it is clear that a unilateral U.S. military action in Nigeria, without a direct armed attack on the U.S. by Nigeria or a UN Security Council resolution, would be categorically illegal under international law. Not only would executing the threat constitute an act of aggression, the threat itself is an unlawful and internationally wrongful act.
U.S. Constitutional and Domestic Law Hurdles
Other significant legal barriers will become apparent if one considers President Trump’s statement against domestic legal requirements within the United States.
First, the War Powers Resolution (1973) requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing the nation’s armed forces into hostilities. It also mandates the withdrawal of forces within 60 days if Congress has not declared war or authorized the use of military force.
Further, the power to declare war, in the United States, resides with the U.S. Congress. While modern presidents have often used Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), mobilizing troops in respect of a new, specific conflict in Nigeria requires explicit congressional approval to be legal. Any action that bypasses this process undermines the U.S.’s own constitutional framework.
Implications for US-Nigeria Bilateral Relations
The threat issued by the President of the United States, Donald Trump, could, from a legal-diplomatic standpoint, trigger unintended consequences under existing bilateral agreements.
Firstly, a foundational rule of international law is that no state may deploy armed forces on another state’s territory without that state’s consent, except in very limited cases. Particularly applied to the United States, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) govern the legal status of U.S. military personnel in a foreign country. Nations enter into these agreements on the premise of the requirement that host states must consent to the presence of such military personnel within their territory. Any unauthorized deployment would blatantly violate the foundational principle.
Secondly, nations often formalize their security cooperation, including on terrorism, through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT). A public threat of unilateral military action erodes the trust and mutual respect that form the foundation of these treaties.
Nigeria’s Legal and Diplomatic Options
Should President Trump’s threat materialize into action, Nigeria would have a number of legal and diplomatic alternatives:
First, Nigeria has the option of bringing up the issue before the UN Security Council as an act of aggression, demanding a resolution condemning the action.
Second, Nigeria can institute proceedings against the United States at the ICJ for violating the UN Charter and customary international law, seeking a judgment declaring the threat of military invasion illegal.
Third, Nigeria can rally the African Union to condemn the planned action of the United States as a violation of the sovereignty of an AU member state. The African Union member countries can adopt collective diplomatic, political, and economic measures to bolster their sovereignty and prevent the military intervention that the U.S. President has threatened.
Lastly, Nigeria must, as a domestic response, immediately improve on its security architecture to ensure immediate and lasting solutions to the deteriorating security crises within the country. But for such underlying issues which hint at either corrupt complicity or systemic failure within the Nigerian security apparatus, the United States would not have had a basis for such statement as was made by President Trump.
Conclusion:
While some may view political rhetoric as harmless, the legal reality is otherwise. A public threat of military action by the U.S. President carries significant international legal implications. It undermines sovereignty and challenges the prohibition of force, a cornerstone of modern international law. For Nigeria and the broader international community, such incidents underscore the importance of defending the integrity of the UN Charter and holding all states, powerful or not, accountable under international law. The statement is also serves as a wakeup call to the need for nations to fix their domestic issues before such issues fester and require the intervention or, in this case, interference, of third parties.
- Oluwaseun Adedayo Omotoso is a Legal Practioner, Political Analyst and Security Consultant based in Lagos, Nigeria.
[1] Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
[2] The Court held that “If the use of force in a given case would be unlawful, the threat to use such force will likewise be unlawful.”
Subscribe, follow, share!
Has this article been of help? Why not consider subscribing to our mailing list us for more.
Do not forget to share, Follow our pages on Facebook and Instagram and also subscribe to our WhatsApp Channel