By Mohammed Bello Adoke
I am delighted at the opportunity to deliver this keynote on a theme that has agitated my mind since my undergraduate days at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and the University of Leiden during my graduate studies for the Advanced Master’s Degree in International Law. Recent events across the globe have further heightened my concerns about the state of international law and international institutions, such as the United Nations, which led me to choose the theme for this breakout session. I thank the organisers of the conference for the privilege to host this session.
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, you will agree that there is a certain unease in the air of our time. The kind you don’t need intelligence briefings to detect. The kind that whispers: the rules are still written, but no one is quite sure who is obeying them anymore. We stand today at the crossroads of history, where the grand architecture of international law painstakingly built after the ashes of the Second World War is being tested not by the weak, but by the powerful. As you well know, when the powerful begin to bend the rules, the rest of the world starts asking what I consider to be a dangerous question: Are there still rules at all?
To provide an overview of the issues at stake as reflected in the theme, I have segmented this keynote into four parts, namely: The Idea of Order: Between Law and Power; Unilateralism: the Return of Power Politics; Multilateralism: Ideal vs Reality; and the Emerging New World Order.
Intervention in domestic affairs, and the prohibition of the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Article 2(4) of the Charter is clear that states must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. But as you know, recent experiences indicate that law is only as strong as the will behind it.
Unilateralism: the Return of Power Politics. Unilateralism is not new. It is as old as the empire itself. It is the instinct of power to act alone to move swiftly, decisively, and without waiting for the slow machinery of consensus. But what is new is its normalisation in a supposedly rules-based order. A few recent examples will suffice:
Venezuela: A shock to the system.
Recently, the world watched as the United States carried out a controversial intervention in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro without authorisation from the UN Security Council.
Let’s call it what it is, not diplomacy, not cooperation, but force without multilateral consent. Legal scholars widely describe such acts as violations of the UN Charter, particularly the prohibition on the use of force. Even more troubling was the institutional response, or lack thereof. The Security Council, paralysed by political divisions and veto power, could do little more than talk.
There lies the crisis. Not just the act, but the inability of the system to respond.
Ukraine: Multilateralism Without Teeth.
Let us contrast the situation in Venezuela with the ongoing war in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion was widely condemned as an act of aggression. The UN General Assembly stepped in when the Security Council was blocked by veto politics, passing resolutions demanding withdrawal. But, as you know, resolutions are not tanks.
Condemnation is not enforcement.
Here lies the paradox: Multilateralism spoke, but unilateral power acted. The result? A prolonged war, a fractured global consensus, and a sobering realisation that enforcement mechanisms are only as strong as geopolitical interests allow.
Iran: The Edge of Escalation.
In the Middle East, tensions involving Iran, particularly airstrikes, covert operations, and proxy conflicts, have further illustrated the fragility of international order. Again, the pattern repeats:
Strategic interests override legal restraint; Collective mechanisms lag behind unilateral decisions; the law becomes reactive rather than preventive.
Gaza: The Tragedy that Tests the Soul of International Law.
If Ukraine exposed the paralysis of enforcement, Gaza exposes the moral fracture of the international system. The crisis between Israel and Palestine, particularly the devastating military operations in Gaza, has raised profound legal and humanitarian questions. Civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and restrictions on humanitarian access have sparked global outrage and deep division.
Israel asserts its right to self-defence. That right exists under Article 51 of the UN Charter. No serious legal mind denies it. But here is where the law becomes uncomfortable: self-defence is not a blank cheque. It is constrained by: Necessity, Proportionality, and Distinction between combatants and civilians. This is where the global debate intensifies. Critics argue that the scale and nature of operations in Gaza raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law. Supporters counter with the complexity of asymmetric warfare and the use of civilian areas by armed groups.
Meanwhile, the United Nations calls for ceasefires. Resolutions are proposed. Vetoes are cast. Statements are issued. But on the ground, the bombs do not wait for diplomacy. This is the uncomfortable truth: Gaza is not just a conflict; it is a mirror. A mirror reflecting a world where Law struggles to restrain power;
Institutions struggle to act decisively, and human suffering becomes the price of geopolitical stalemate.
Multilateralism: Ideal vs Reality
Multilateralism, at its core, is the belief that global problems require collective solutions. It is diplomacy over domination. Dialogue over destruction. But let’s not romanticise it. Multilateralism today faces three brutal realities: first,
Power Imbalance.
The UN Security Council reflects the world of 1945, not 2026. A handful of states hold veto power, effectively determining when international law will be enforced and when it will be ignored.
Secondly, Selective Compliance. States comply with international law when it aligns with their interests and reinterpret it when it does not. Thirdly, Institutional Paralysis. As seen in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Gaza, the inability of the Security Council to act decisively has weakened confidence in the system.
Consequently, it can be stated that – Multilateralism is not failing because it is wrong.
It is failing because it is inconvenient to power.
(iv) The Emerging “New World Order”
So, what then is this “new world order” we speak of? It is not new in principle, but it is new in intensity. It is a world characterised, first, by Strategic Fragmentation, in which the rise of competing blocs and shifting alliances reflects a return to geopolitical camps. Secondly, Norm Erosion, repeated violations or contested interpretations of the UN Charter across Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, and Gaza are not isolated incidents.
They are becoming patterns. Precedent, once set, is a dangerous teacher.
Thirdly, Legal Cynicism. Perhaps the most troubling shift is psychological: states are beginning to view international law not as binding, but as optional, something to invoke when useful and ignore when inconvenient. That is how orders collapse not with explosions, but with indifference.
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, these developments have implications for Nigeria in particular and Africa in general. From where we stand in Nigeria and Africa, the stakes are even higher. Because unilateralism rarely knocks on the doors of the powerful first. It begins at the margins. Consequently, if the rules collapse globally, it is the weaker states that suffer the most. That is not a theory. That is history. We need to deeply interrogate these developments and ask pertinent questions, such as where do we go from here? Do we abandon multilateralism because it is flawed? Or do we strengthen it because it is necessary? This is because, in my respectful view, the alternative to multilateralism is not efficiency, it is chaos.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I will not attempt to answer these questions, as a Panel of eminent international law experts has been assembled to interrogate these issues and, where necessary, proffer solutions. As I conclude, let me leave you with this thought:
The architects of the post-1945 order were not naive. They had seen war up close.
They knew the cost of unchecked power. So they built a system, not perfect, but principled. I believe our task is not to admire that system. Our task is to defend it.
Because if we don’t, then one day, sooner than we think, we may wake up in a world where the law is silent, and only power speaks.
I thank you for your kind attention.
…Adoke, CFR, SAN, FCI Arb,
Former Attorney General of the Federation, delivered this paper at a breakout session of the International Law Association (Nigerian Branch), Conference held on 14/04/2026.