Markus Gehring, member of the Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) and Tejas Rao, University of Cambridge
The adage that a leader who ‘saves’ their country cannot break the law—often misattributed to Napoleon—stands in stark contrast to the reality of international legal obligations. Not only can a nation breach international law, but under certain circumstances, such actions may constitute international crimes. As Emanuel Celler astutely observed, “illegality will never solve the problem of political lawlessness.” With this principle in mind, we find it necessary to document and analyse the numerous apparent breaches of international law that have occurred within the first six weeks of the 2025 Trump administration. […]
1. Threats Against Canada, Panama, and Greenland
President Trump has repeatedly referred to Canada as the “future 51st State,” claimed in his State of the Union address that the U.S. will “have Greenland, one way or another,” and asserted that the Panama Canal “still belongs to the U.S.”
These statements appear to violate both the peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law prohibiting aggression and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which explicitly states:“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
The prohibition against aggression, including threats thereof, is widely recognized as a jus cogens norm—a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted. This principle has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in multiple cases, including Nicaragua v. United States, the International Law Commission’s work on state responsibility, and widespread state practice and opinio juris. […]
4. Recognition of Russian Claims to Ukrainian Territory and other Measures with regards to Ukraine
President Trump’s statement that “Russia has all the cards” and that Ukraine should “recognise the reality on the ground” equally constitute violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the Ukrainian’s right to self-determination and the international legal principle of uti possedetis. Additionally, depending on the context and implementation, such actions could potentially constitute ethnic cleansing or even genocide under international criminal law. We note that waging a war of aggression is an international crime. Aiding and abetting this international crime, could itself amount to an international crime.
Not supporting Ukraine militarily also violates their 2024 Bilateral Security Agreement between Ukraine and the USA (known as the 10-Year Agreement) which was signed in June 2024 and contains a six-month termination clause, which, to our knowledge, has not been triggered by the USA. The obvious violations by the USA of these treaty obligations give rise to international responsibility by the US and compensation for Ukraine.
The halting of intelligence sharing also violates the 2003 US-Ukraine Agreement on the protection of Classified Defense Information, which entered into force on July 14, 2004, and has not been terminated.
Finally, the draft US Minerals Agreement with Ukraine in our view constitutes a breach of existing treaty obligations by the US towards Ukraine. It violates the customary international legal right to sovereignty over natural resource and their sustainable use. The way this agreement has been imposed on Ukraine could constitute coercion in international law and makes any resulting agreement latently invalid. Läs artikel