International Law, Security & The Question Of Bombing Nigeria
Sovereignty and the Shock of External Force
THE suggestion that a foreign power could conduct military strikes inside Nigeria has provoked widespread alarm, raising a fundamental question at the heart of international law: does Nigeria’s sovereignty still matter? The short answer is yes. The longer, legally accurate answer is more complex. Sovereignty remains a core principle of international law, but it is no longer absolute in the way it was once imagined.
Modern international law operates within a framework shaped by security threats, collective obligations, and evolving doctrines, particularly in the context of terrorism. Understanding whether foreign military action inside Nigeria could ever be lawful requires a careful examination of that framework rather than emotional reaction.
The General Prohibition on the Use of Force
The starting point is clear and uncontested. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. This rule forms one of the pillars of the post–World War II international legal order. Under this principle, no state has an automatic right to carry out military operations inside another sovereign state.
Any cross-border military strike is therefore presumed illegal unless it falls within a narrow set of recognised exceptions. This presumption protects weaker states from coercion and preserves international stability.
Consent: Sovereignty Exercised, Not Violated
One such exception is consent. If Nigeria were to request, authorise, or consent to foreign military assistance, that action would not violate its sovereignty. On the contrary, sovereignty would be exercised through consent.
International law does not require consent to be public or dramatic. States may quietly authorise assistance for strategic or diplomatic reasons. When valid consent exists, the use of force is lawful because the territorial state has agreed to it. However, consent must be genuine, given by the recognised government, and limited to the scope agreed upon.
Absent public confirmation, the existence of consent remains speculative, leaving legality unresolved rather than established.
Self-Defence and Article 51 of the UN Charter
The most contentious justification for cross-border military action is self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This provision allows a state to use force if it has suffered an armed attack or faces an imminent one.
In recent decades, some states, including the United States, have extended this doctrine to cover attacks by non-state actors such as terrorist groups. The argument holds that where a terrorist organisation poses a serious threat and the host state is unable or unwilling to neutralise it, limited force may be used in self-defence.
This doctrine is highly controversial. While increasingly relied upon in practice, it is not universally accepted in law. Many states fear it erodes sovereignty and enables abuse under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Non-State Actors and the Changing Nature of Conflict
Terrorist organisations complicate traditional legal analysis. They are not states and therefore do not enjoy sovereign protections. International law now recognises that non-state actors can trigger the right of self-defence, particularly where attacks are large-scale and continuous.
However, this recognition does not grant carte blanche. The presence of terrorists within a state’s territory does not automatically permit foreign intervention. Legal justification still depends on strict criteria.
The Tests of Necessity and Proportionality
Even where self-defence is invoked, international law imposes limits. Force must be necessary, meaning no reasonable alternative exists, such as cooperation with local authorities. It must also be proportional, targeting only the threat and avoiding excessive harm.
Indiscriminate or expansive military action would fall outside lawful self-defence, regardless of the stated objective.
Accountability and the Role of the United Nations
States invoking self-defence are expected to report their actions to the UN Security Council. This requirement reinforces transparency and allows international scrutiny. Silence or secrecy weakens legal credibility and fuels suspicion.
Is It Lawful? The Only Legal Possibilities
Legally, there are only three possible conclusions: Nigeria consented; the acting state is invoking self-defence under a contested doctrine; or the action violates Nigeria’s sovereignty. Without official clarification, legality remains contested rather than settled.
Power, Politics and the Reality of Enforcement
International law is not enforced like domestic law. Power and politics influence outcomes, but this does not negate the law’s existence. Sovereignty remains real, but it operates within an interconnected legal system.
The central lesson is clear: sovereignty is not unlimited, force is generally illegal, and legality depends on law, not press statements. Public scrutiny matters, because silence allows legal boundaries to shift quietly.
