An Analysis of the Consequences of Military Intervention, the Erosion of State Sovereignty, and the Future of the United Nations
By Khaledin Ziaei, Head of the Educational Discourse of the Nation Think Tank, especially for “Sangar”
Recent changes in the international system—particularly unilateral military interventions and the disregard for the principle of sovereignty of independent states—have revealed serious signs of the weakening of the legal order established after the Second World War. This article, with a focus on claims regarding U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and its geopolitical consequences for China, Russia, Iran, as well as Taiwan and Ukraine, examines the transformation of the nature of the international system, the decline of the role of the United Nations, and the likelihood of a return to the “law of the jungle” in international relations.
The article argues that the continuation of this trend may lead the world toward structural instability and even a large-scale war.
Introduction
The post–Second World War international order was formed on the basis of such principles as the sovereignty of independent states, non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the central role of the United Nations. The United States of America, as one of the principal architects of this order and a founding member of the UN, has consistently presented itself as a defender of these international norms and principles.
However, recent events demonstrate that these principles are now being subjected to systematic violations more than ever before—not only by emerging centers of power, but also by established powers, which cannot be considered acceptable.
Military Intervention and the Crisis of Legitimacy of International Law
According to classical international law and the UN Charter, the change of government in an independent state through external military intervention constitutes a direct violation of the principle of national sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force. If the armed forces of one state—especially a state that played a key role in shaping these norms—intervene in determining or imposing the political leadership of an independent country, such actions are not only devoid of legal legitimacy but also undermine the foundations of the international order.
Such actions send a signal to the global community that law has given way to force, and that rules apply only insofar as they do not contradict the interests of great powers.
Geopolitical Consequences: Rising Boldness of Powers and Intensified Competition
Analysts believe that unilateral military interventions may trigger a chain reaction in other sensitive regions of the world. In this context, U.S. military actions against Venezuela may be perceived in Beijing as a manifestation of Western double standards, which in turn could make China more resolute in strengthening its position on the Taiwan issue and in the South China Sea.
At the same time, China’s strategic calculations—especially regarding Taiwan—depend less on events in Latin America and more on domestic conditions, economic stability, social cohesion, and the balance of power with the United States. This indicates that the international system has entered a phase of complex and multi-layered power calculations.
The Decline of the Role of the United Nations
One of the most significant consequences of these processes has been a sharp decline in the effectiveness and authority of the United Nations. The organization, established to prevent wars and resolve conflicts through legal and diplomatic means, today finds itself either powerless in many key crises or pushed to the periphery.
Political vetoes, the disregard of resolutions, and unilateral actions by great powers have led to a gradual degradation of the UN’s role—from an active participant to a passive observer—a condition that can be described as the “reduction of the UN’s operational role to zero.”
The Return of the “Law of the Jungle” to International Relations
The key question is the following:
Are international relations returning to a state in which force becomes the sole criterion of legitimacy, and weaker states are inevitably sacrificed to the interests of great powers?
Signs point to the formation of a new informal order in which:
- international norms are applied selectively;
- state sovereignty is conditional upon the consent of great powers;
- global security is based not on law, but on hard deterrence.
The Future of the World Order and the Threat of Global War
The continuation of this trend paints an alarming picture. Disregard for international law, the weakening of multilateral institutions, and intensified geopolitical competition may push the world toward a Third World War with devastating consequences—a war that, unlike previous ones, may begin not with a single incident, but with a convergence of interconnected regional crises.
Conclusion
The international system stands at the threshold of a historic transition: either a rethinking and revival of common rules with genuine acceptance of multipolarity, or a slide into an uncontrolled order in which “force” replaces “law.”
The future of interstate relations and the role of the United Nations depend on the degree of commitment of key actors to the principles of sovereignty, independence, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Otherwise, instability, wars, and insecurity will become not the exception, but the norm of the future world order.
It is expected that conclusions will be drawn from the decisiveness and rigidity of the actions of the authorities of the United States, Russia, and China, and that, as countermeasures, they will act with equal speed and determination in Ukraine and Taiwan—to support Volodymyr Zelensky and his wife, as well as to provide comprehensive support to the Prime Minister of Taiwan and his wife. Otherwise, confidence in the Eastern bloc led by China and Russia as powerful states will be permanently undermined, and the balance of international power will ultimately tilt in favor of the United States of America.
Analysts believe that a U.S. military attack on Iran and Venezuela would make China and Russia bolder in strengthening their territorial claims with regard to Taiwan and Ukraine.
According to experts, China and Russia would use possible U.S. strikes on Venezuela and Iran as an opportunity to intensify criticism of Washington and strengthen their positions on the international stage.
At the same time, analysts do not rule out the possibility of a Chinese military attack on Taiwan and Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, since, in their view, the aggressive and irresponsible behavior of the U.S. leadership under Trump, from the perspective of power politics, lends a kind of informal legitimacy to such actions.
