After the Second World War and the loss of millions of lives, the victorious powers decided to establish rules and mechanisms to preserve international peace and security, prevent threats to peace, suppress acts of aggression, and ensure the peaceful settlement of disputes between states in accordance with international law. These mechanisms and the institutions created to implement them have, especially in recent years, put on full display their peak ineffectiveness, injustice, and inability to resolve crises. The current situation bears striking similarities to the 1930s and the experience of the League of Nations. The League of Nations was founded in 1920 under the Treaty of Versailles, concluded by the victors of the First World War. The main idea behind it was advanced by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in his well‑known Fourteen Points.
The core objective of this organization, much like its later incarnation, the United Nations, was that disputes between states should be resolved through negotiation, that war as an instrument of international policy should be reduced, and that a system of collective security among states should be established. The League’s inability in the 1930s to prevent acts of aggression was one of the most important reasons for its failure. During that decade, several powerful states violated international law and occupied foreign territories, yet the League was unable to take effective measures to stop them. As a result, the organization’s credibility was severely undermined.
In 1931, the Japanese army attacked Manchuria in northern China and, after occupying the region, installed a puppet government there. The League of Nations condemned Japan’s aggression, but no effective military measures or meaningful sanctions were adopted, and Japan eventually withdrew from the League in 1933. In 1935, fascist Italy under Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Italy’s aggression was condemned, and limited economic sanctions were imposed, but there were serious shortcomings: the sanctions were incomplete (for example, oil was not embargoed) and no military action was taken. Ultimately, Italy succeeded in conquering Ethiopia in 1936. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany under Hitler began systematically to violate the post‑Versailles military restrictions, especially in the military sphere. In 1936, German forces entered the Rhineland, in clear violation of international treaties, yet the League again failed to mount a serious response.
This record of failure led decision‑makers of the 1930s to effectively set the League of Nations aside in their calculations and to act based on raw power instead. The result was the Second World War. Similar patterns of inability to resolve crises and the marginalization of international mechanisms can be observed in the recent conduct of the United Nations.
Ukraine crisis
On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a large‑scale military operation against Ukraine, which the Russian government labelled a “special military operation.” This event has been one of the most important tests for the United Nations in the twenty‑first century. The UN system is premised on the assumption that the great powers will cooperate with one another. However, in the war in Ukraine, Russia itself is a party to the conflict, while Western states such as the United States and European countries support Ukraine. This geopolitical confrontation has turned the Security Council into an arena for power rivalry rather than an instrument for crisis management.
Analysts argue that, in a situation where one of the permanent members is directly involved in a war, the United Nations is almost incapable of bringing that war to an end. Russia has claimed that NATO’s expansion posed a vital threat to its security and that the defence of the Donetsk and Luhansk “republics” justified its special operation. Given Russia’s veto power, the UN remained effectively paralyzed.
Gaza crisis
Following 7 October, the Israeli regime launched large‑scale operations against the Gaza Strip, invoking the right of self‑defence. UN draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire and an end to military operations were vetoed in light of the United States’ unconditional support for Israel. Many states and human rights bodies emphasized that even in the exercise of self‑defence, the rules of international humanitarian law must be respected: the principle of proportionality, the principle of distinction between civilians and military objectives, and the prohibition of collective punishment. Yet in this crisis the Israeli regime has violated these principles. In 2024, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced that he had requested arrest warrants for several individuals in connection with the Gaza war, including Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel) and Yoav Gallant (then Minister of Defence). In practice, however, this has had no tangible effect.
The 2025 report of the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry concluded that actions carried out in Gaza may meet several criteria for genocide under the 1948 Convention. These include large‑scale killing; infliction of serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately creating conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a group; and measures intended to prevent births within the group. The report also noted that certain statements by Israeli officials could be interpreted as evidence of genocidal intent. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories has likewise discussed the economic and political structures that have led to a genocidal situation.
According to recent figures, more than 64,000 people have been killed in Gaza, the majority of them civilians. Around 90 percent of Gaza’s schools and universities have been destroyed or damaged. A large part of the health‑care system has collapsed. Gaza’s population is about 2.3 million, and many of them now face the risk of famine and severe food shortages.
Venezuela
On 3 January 2026, the United States carried out a military operation in Venezuela, during which that country’s President, Nicolás Maduro, was arrested. The United Nations Charter enshrines two key principles: the sovereignty of states, meaning that each state has full authority over its territory, and the principle of non‑intervention, under which states must not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. If a state attempts to abduct or arrest the leader of another state without international legal authorization, such conduct may amount to a violation of sovereignty, a breach of international law, and even an act of international hostility. Heads of state, such as presidents, are typically entitled to international immunity.
In international law, this is known as head‑of‑state immunity. Under this principle, the national courts of other states cannot prosecute a sitting head of state, except under specific circumstances or before international courts—and there is no international judgment against Maduro. Whether one likes or dislikes a particular head of state is irrelevant to this legal protection.
US and Israeli attacks on Iran
On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a series of air and missile strikes against targets in Iran. Once again, Iran was subjected to military attack in the midst of negotiations with the United States (on a previous occasion, Israel carried out attacks in June), and in the latest strikes hundreds of civilians were killed, including more than 175 primary‑school‑age girls, as well as Iran’s supreme religious leader and other officials, by the United States and Israel. Under the UN Charter, if a state has neither been attacked nor received Security Council authorization to use force against another state, any such attack is, as a rule, considered an unlawful use of force under international law and may amount, in legal terms, to the crime of aggression. The Security Council has not issued even a single word of condemnation or a resolution against these attacks. In a bizarre and absurd move, however, it adopted a resolution condemning Iran’s retaliatory strikes on US bases in the region—the only available targets for Iran to respond directly to President Trump’s administration.
Earlier, on 3 January 2020, the United States military used a drone near Baghdad International Airport to strike the convoy carrying Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and an official guest of the Iraqi government. No convincing proof of an “imminent attack” was presented, and the strike was carried out on Iraqi soil without that state’s consent. Moreover, the operation targeted a serving state official in peacetime. For these reasons, many international lawyers regarded it as a violation of international law. And what was the United Nations’ reaction? Effectively nothing.
Conclusion
It seems that over time the sense of public shame about overriding international law and bypassing the United Nations is eroding. The entire world has witnessed what has happened to Gaza and what role the UN and international law have played. All states see what it means when a country is attacked in the midst of political negotiations and there is not even a symbolic condemnation. All leaders see that a bullying state can abduct them overnight and be held accountable nowhere.
The trajectory is clear. States will move toward maximizing their defensive and military capabilities and their own power, and the logic of self‑help will be reinforced. The United Nations and international law, with this pattern of conduct, will become discredited and marginalized, much as the League of Nations was cast aside after its failures. The similarities in the path are striking—and likely in the ultimate outcomes as well.
