No Longer an “Allegation,” but an Open Reality
The Debate Is Over
The Open Violation of International Law
The Use of Force and Threats: Happening Openly
The United Nations system was established after the Second World War to prevent arbitrary uses of force by states. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This provision constitutes a cornerstone of international law, and its binding nature is beyond dispute.
The rhetoric and practices of the United States toward Venezuela, Iran, the Caribbean, and several other regions constitute clear violations of this prohibition. Calls for regime change, insinuations of military intervention, naval deployments, and official statements containing explicit threats go far beyond the limits of diplomatic language. In international law, such actions are defined as the threat of force.
These actions cannot be justified under the doctrine of self-defense, nor have they been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, what exists here is not a legal controversy but an instance of unauthorized use of force. This reality demonstrates that the United States treats international law not as binding, but as optional.
More dangerously, these violations are no longer exceptional; they have become standard policy. Law is treated as a flexible instrument shaped by power relations. This approach not only legitimizes U.S. actions but also creates a precedent for other states to justify similar violations.
In short, what is occurring is not a series of isolated incidents, but the systematic erosion of international law. Unless this erosion is halted, persistent global instability will be unavoidable.
Unilateral Sanctions: Economic Warfare
Unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States have long ceased to be conventional diplomatic tools. Rather than targeting state structures, these measures directly affect civilian populations. Health systems, food supply chains, and essential public services are the first casualties of such sanctions.
Under international law, the legitimacy of sanctions depends on their collective and multilateral nature. Broad economic sanctions imposed without Security Council authorization are legally problematic. Nevertheless, the United States presents these measures as if it were acting on behalf of the international community.
Reports by UN Special Rapporteurs have clearly demonstrated that these sanctions lead to civilian deaths, widespread poverty, and public health crises. Despite this, sanctions have not only continued but have been expanded. This reflects a conscious disregard for human rights.
Such practices closely resemble collective punishment, which is prohibited under international humanitarian law. Inflicting suffering on millions of people to coerce political change is not a legal instrument, but a coercive and punitive one.
Therefore, what is at issue is not sanctions, but economic warfare—a form of warfare that can be as destructive as military conflict.
From the Perspective of the U.S. Constitution: A Clear Usurpation of Authority
Congress Is Being Bypassed
The U.S. Constitution deliberately assigns the power to declare war to Congress in order to prevent military force from being placed under the will of a single individual. Yet in modern U.S. history, this principle has been effectively suspended.
Presidents have routinely bypassed Congress by invoking “national security” and “imminent threat” justifications. The Trump era represents one of the most overt and reckless manifestations of this trend. Military operations and attacks have been carried out without explicit congressional authorization.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit such abuses. However, it has been systematically violated by the executive branch. Congress, in turn, has often remained silent or acquiesced to faits accomplis.
This is not a matter of constitutional interpretation but of constitutional dysfunction. The legislative branch has been rendered ineffective in relation to the executive, laying the institutional groundwork for authoritarian tendencies within the United States.
As a result, the United States conducts external interventions while violating its own Constitution, generating a legitimacy crisis both domestically and internationally.
What Does “Parallel State” Mean? The Real Definition
The term “parallel state” does not refer here to a hidden or mystical structure. Rather, it describes a highly visible, documented, and institutionalized configuration of power operating outside democratic oversight.
Defense corporations, security bureaucracies, and lobbying networks have become the de facto architects of foreign policy. These actors wield far greater influence than elected representatives. Decisions are made beyond public scrutiny and legislative control.
The media functions as a complementary component of this structure. Interventionist policies are routinely presented under the banners of “national interest” and “security” without meaningful scrutiny. Public opinion is thus kept in a permanent state of perceived threat.
This structure views law not as a boundary, but as an obstacle to be overcome. International agreements are abandoned when interests shift. Diplomacy is replaced by coercion.
What exists, therefore, is a coalition of power that has supplanted the rule of law. This coalition is operational, and its consequences are global.
The Consequences of This Regime
The outcomes of this interventionist regime are no longer theoretical; they are being experienced. Regional wars have become permanent, and temporary crises have evolved into chronic conflicts.
Nuclear armament has regained momentum. As trust in international agreements erodes, states increasingly rely on military buildup to secure themselves, amplifying global risks.
In the Global South, opposition to U.S. policies has become not only political but societal, fueling radicalization and instability.
Within the United States, the excessive centralization of executive power weakens democratic institutions. The principle of the rule of law is displaced by appeals to “security.”
Ultimately, this regime undermines both the global order and the internal balance of the United States itself.
What Must Be Done? Clear and Concrete Solutions
At the International Level
The current crisis of the international system stems not from the absence of institutions, but from the paralysis of political will. The United Nations remains central to legal legitimacy; the problem lies in its deliberate incapacitation by major powers. The solution is not to abandon the UN, but to use its mechanisms despite Security Council vetoes.
The UN General Assembly, including through the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism, must intervene when the Security Council is deadlocked. While not legally binding, this mechanism carries significant legitimacy-producing power. International law operates not only through enforcement, but also through normative pressure.
The International Court of Justice and other judicial bodies must be utilized more actively despite pressure from powerful states. Non-compliance with rulings does not render legal processes meaningless; on the contrary, it ensures that violations are historically and legally recorded. Law operates in the long term, not the short term.
Regional alliances in Latin America, Africa, and Asia should develop joint economic and diplomatic mechanisms to counter unilateral sanctions. Such cooperation not only mitigates sanctions’ effects but also contributes to the practical reconstruction of multilateralism.
Thus, the central objective at the international level must be to reject the normalization of force and to restore law as the primary point of reference. This is not idealism, but a vital necessity.
Within the United States
The crisis facing the United States is not merely a foreign policy issue; it directly concerns the functioning of its constitutional order. Congress’s effective loss of war powers hollow out democratic representation and is unsustainable.
Congress must enforce the War Powers Resolution in practice and exercise real oversight over military actions. Budgetary authority, investigative committees, and transparent voting procedures are essential tools. Otherwise, Congress risks becoming a symbolic institution.
Federal courts must adopt a firmer stance against executive overreach. “National security” cannot serve as an automatic justification for suspending the law. Unless the judiciary constrains power abuses hidden behind this rhetoric, constitutional order will collapse in practice.
The role of the media is decisive. A media system that reproduces interventionist narratives rather than questioning them becomes not a check on power, but a carrier of the power regime itself. Critical journalism is not a security threat; it is a democratic necessity.
A genuine solution within the United States requires the restoration of constitutional checks and balances against executive overreach.
Peoples and Civil Society
Historically, the most enduring resistance to unlawful state practices has emerged from civil society and transnational solidarity. This remains true today, but the language and method of such resistance are decisive.
Criticism rooted in emotional outrage or identity-based targeting weakens itself. By contrast, criticism grounded in evidence, law, and universal principles generates legitimacy. The core strength of civil society lies in ethical and legal consistency.
Stronger ties must be forged among international networks, labor unions, academic communities, and human rights organizations. If interventionist policies operate globally, resistance must also be global in scope.
Equally crucial is the responsibility of peoples to hold their own governments accountable. External interventions are often framed as “inevitable” to domestic audiences. Challenging this narrative is fundamental to democratic responsibility.
Thus, the role of civil society is not merely to react, but to continuously sustain a law-based alternative political rationality.
Conclusion: This Is a Regime of Collapse
What we are witnessing today is not a temporary governing style or a periodic deviation. It is the institutionalization of a system in which law has ceased to be binding and raw power has become the source of legitimacy. This system affects not only U.S. foreign policy but the global order as a whole.
Historically, every order built upon the suspension of law has delivered short-term dominance at the cost of long-term legitimacy and stability. From Rome to colonial empires, from Cold War proxy conflicts to the present, this pattern has remained unchanged. When law retreats, violence and chaos expand.
The interventionist trajectory pursued by the United States today not only devastates targeted countries but also erodes its own constitutional and democratic foundations. The marginalization of Congress, the constriction of the judiciary, and the centralization of executive power expose the direct link between external interventionism and internal authoritarianism.
The most dangerous consequence for the international system is this: impunity makes violations contagious. When a major power openly violates the law without consequence, others are encouraged to follow suit. This produces a permanent condition of global insecurity.
This is not a matter of “anti-Americanism” or geopolitical alignment. It is a question of whether the universal binding force of law can be preserved. If law applies only to the weak, what remains is not law, but hierarchical coercion.
There is no way out through romantic appeals. The path forward requires a persistent, collective, and principled struggle for law. Reinvigorating international institutions, strengthening global civil society solidarity, and prioritizing long-term stability over short-term gains are imperative.
Final word:
This is not merely a debate about world order—it is a turning point for humanity’s shared future.
And at such a turning point, neutrality is not an option; principled commitment is.
REFERENCES
1. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, 1945.
2. International Court of Justice. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Judgment, 1986.
3. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 2625 (XXV) – Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, 1970.
4. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 377 A (V) – Uniting for Peace, 1950.
5. United Nations Human Rights Council. Reports of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. (Particularly Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba reports).
6. Douhan, Alena. Impact of Unilateral Sanctions on Human Rights. United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
7. United States of America. The Constitution of the United States.
8. United States Congress. War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93–148, 1973.
9. Congressional Research Service. Presidential War Powers: History, Legal Analysis, and Practice.
10. Harvard Law Review. Executive Power and the Use of Military Force. Various issues.
11. Yale Law Journal. National Security, Executive Power, and Constitutional Limits. Various articles.
12. Chomsky, Noam. Who Rules the World? New York: Metropolitan Books, 2016.
13. Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt, 2003.
14. Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. Oxford University Press, 2005.
15. Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Times Books, 2006.
16. Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. London: Zed Books, 2003.
17. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press, 1956.
18. Hudson, Michael. Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. Pluto Press, 2003.
19. Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford University Press, 2012.
20. Moyn, Samuel. Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021.
21. Herman, Edward S., & Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, 1988.
22. RAND Corporation. U.S. Military Posture and Coercive Diplomacy. Various reports.
23. Foreign Affairs. Sanctions, Executive Power, and U.S. Global Strategy. Various articles.
24. Foreign Policy. Unilateral Sanctions and International Order. Various analyses.
Leave a Reply