Introduction: A Year That Tested the International Legal Order
The year 2025 will likely be remembered as a defining moment for international law. Across regions and legal regimes, we witnessed a convergence of forces that placed extraordinary strain on the rule-based international order: economic coercion, military operations raising serious concerns about extrajudicial killings, landmark judicial rulings clarifying states’ legal obligations, and deeply troubling accountability gaps when violations were exposed.
What made 2025 particularly challenging was not only the scale of these developments but also the environment in which they unfolded: legal determinations were increasingly filtered through political narratives, binding obligations were treated as optional, and evidence-based findings by courts and UN bodies were often dismissed as partisan or inconvenient.
In such a climate, international law demands something difficult but essential: disciplined attention to facts rather than emotion, law rather than politics, and accountability rather than image management. This article outlines several of the most significant international legal developments of 2025 and reflects on what they collectively reveal about the state and stakes of international law today.
US Tariff Revolution Sends Global Shockwaves
The most immediate disruption to international economic law in 2025 came from the United States’ sweeping tariff program, announced on April 2 as part of what President Trump termed “Liberation Day.” The program imposed a baseline 10% tariff on imports from nearly all countries, exempting only Canada and Mexico, with substantially higher rates applied to approximately 60 jurisdictions, including China, Japan, and the European Union. The breadth and unilateral nature of the measures marked a sharp departure from established multilateral trade norms, raising serious questions about compatibility with World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, including the most-favoured-nation principle and tariff-binding commitments.
The economic ramifications were severe and far-reaching. Domestic analyses estimated that the tariffs resulted in an average tax increase of nearly US$1,300 per U.S. household in 2025, driven by higher consumer prices and higher input costs for manufacturers. Globally, the effects were even more pronounced. European Commission modelling suggested a net global welfare loss of approximately 1.2%, with disproportionate harm to export-dependent economies and significant disruption to integrated supply chains in sectors such as automotive manufacturing, advanced technology, agriculture, and energy. Retaliatory measures by affected trading partners further amplified market volatility and uncertainty.
Beyond their immediate economic impact, the tariffs underscored a deeper structural shift in international economic law: the erosion of multilateral dispute-resolution mechanisms and the growing reliance on unilateral trade enforcement. With the WTO Appellate Body remaining effectively paralyzed, affected states had limited recourse to binding adjudication, weakening incentives for compliance and encouraging reciprocal protectionism. The result has been a fragmented trade environment in which power-based bargaining increasingly supplants rule-based governance, undermining predictability, legal certainty, and long-term confidence in the international trading system.
Economic Coercion and Free Expression: US Tariffs and the Chilling Effect on Speech
One of the most unsettling developments of 2025 was the direct intersection of economic power and freedom of expression. On October 25, 2025, President Donald Trump announced an additional 10% tariff on all Canadian goods, in addition to the existing 35% tariffs. The stated reason was not a trade imbalance or an industrial policy, but rather a television advertisement aired by the Government of Ontario.
The advertisement featured verbatim excerpts from a 1987 speech by former President Ronald Reagan warning against tariffs. Despite the authenticity of the speech, which was confirmed by archival footage from the Reagan Presidential Library, President Trump characterized the ad as “fraudulent” and a “hostile act.” He halted trade negotiations with Canada and threatened further tariffs unless the advertisement was removed immediately.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford initially defended the campaign but ultimately paused it amid escalating economic consequences. The chilling effect did not stop there. British Columbia, which had announced plans for a digital campaign opposing US softwood lumber tariffs, postponed its own initiative indefinitely. The province cited the need to ensure its messaging was “aligned” with Ottawa, effectively acknowledging that economic retaliation had constrained political advocacy.
From an international law perspective, this episode raises serious concerns. When economic coercion is deployed to suppress speech rather than regulate commerce, the boundary between trade policy and political intimidation collapses. The result is a chilling effect that weakens the normative foundations of international engagement.
Venezuela and the Caribbean: Military Operations and Allegations of Extrajudicial Killings
Equally alarming were developments in the Caribbean and adjacent waters involving United States military operations against maritime vessels between early September and late October 2025. Beginning on September 2, 2025, the U.S. military initiated a series of lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, claiming they were targeting drug-trafficking operations and alleged “narco-terrorists.” By late 2025, dozens of such strikes had been carried out, resulting in more than 100 deaths, and civilian loss of life had been reported in multiple instances, including cases now the subject of wrongful-death litigation in U.S. federal court.
The Venezuelan government strongly condemned these operations as illegal uses of force, violations of sovereignty, and politically motivated acts that go beyond legitimate counternarcotics enforcement. Venezuelan officials characterized the strikes as military aggression against unarmed civilian vessels, rejected U.S. allegations that these boats were involved in drug trafficking, and maintained that Washington’s broader aim was regime change and control over Venezuela’s natural resources rather than lawful interdiction.
International responses amplified concerns over legality. United Nations human rights officials, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the use of lethal force at sea, even against alleged criminal actors, must comply with international law and basic human rights protections. They expressly warned that what has occurred resembles extrajudicial killings, and urged that such operations be halted and thoroughly investigated. Other UN experts and human rights monitors have likewise emphasized that lethal strikes against vessels in international waters, absent a clear and lawful basis under the UN Charter or the law of the sea, violate fundamental international legal norms.
Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is prohibited except in narrowly defined circumstances, namely self-defence under Article 51 or Security Council authorization. Lethal military strikes on maritime vessels far from U.S. territory, undertaken without Security Council approval or a demonstrable ongoing armed attack against the United States, raise significant doubts about conformity with the Charter and the law of the sea.
In a dramatic escalation of the conflict, on January 3, 2026, United States forces conducted a large-scale military operation in Venezuela, which included airstrikes across northern Venezuela and a targeted assault in Caracas that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They were subsequently transported to the United States to face federal criminal charges. Strong objections from the Venezuelan government, its allies, and numerous international legal experts followed, with critics characterizing the U.S. action as an unlawful armed attack and an illegal abduction of a sovereign head of state without the consent of Venezuela’s government, violating Venezuela’s territorial integrity and political independence under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and established principles of state sovereignty. The operation has been widely condemned in United Nations forums, with diplomats and jurists describing it as a breach of international law, given that a state cannot enforce its domestic criminal laws on the territory of another state without that state’s consent or clear legal authority
Taken together, these developments illustrate how the erosion of legal constraints on the use of force through expansive assertions of authority or blurred distinctions between law enforcement and military action can exacerbate regional instability, undermine state sovereignty, and weaken accountability within the international legal order.
International law is most fragile when violations are framed as exceptional. Repeated “exceptions” become the rule.
Expansion of US Threats: Hemispheric Interventionism and Territorial Claims
Following the Venezuela operation, the Trump administration expanded its threats across multiple sovereign nations and territories. In remarks aboard Air Force One on January 5, 2026, President Trump threatened military action against Colombia, stating the country was "run by a sick man who likes making cocaine," and when asked if this meant a military operation, responded, "It sounds good to me."
Colombian President Gustavo Petro responded by defending his constitutional role as commander of Colombia's military forces and noting there is no evidence linking him to drug trafficking. Mexico, Cuba, Iran, and even Greenland, a territory of NATO ally Denmark, all became subjects of threatened US intervention or annexation.
Trump warned Mexico to "get their act together" regarding drug cartels and offered to send US troops. For Cuba, Trump stated the country "looks like it's ready to fall" and Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Cuban leaders should be "concerned." Regarding Iran, Trump posted on social media that if the government killed protesters, "the United States of America will come to their rescue" and stated the US was "locked and loaded and ready to go."
The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Spain issued a joint statement expressing "profound concern" and "firmly reject[ing] the military actions undertaken unilaterally in Venezuelan territory," noting these "contravene fundamental principles of international law, particularly the prohibition on the use or threat of force." They emphasized that such actions constitute an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and regional security.
Perhaps most extraordinarily, Trump reiterated claims regarding Greenland, stating that the US needs it "from the standpoint of national security" and that "ownership" was necessary for "psychological" comfort, despite existing agreements that provide the US with access to military bases.
Ukraine: The Human Cost of Prolonged War
The war in Ukraine has continued to shape the regional and global security landscape in 2025. The conflict remains marked by ongoing military operations along contested front lines, periodic missile and drone strikes, and significant impacts on civilian populations and infrastructure. Diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire or negotiated settlement have thus far failed to produce a comprehensive resolution.
The conflict has prompted sustained international engagement, including economic sanctions, military assistance, and diplomatic initiatives involving multiple states and international institutions. As the situation evolves, the war continues to influence energy markets, global food supply chains, and broader discussions about international law, accountability, and the future of European security.
Landmark Judicial Developments: Climate Change and Armed Conflict
Against this backdrop of coercion and conflict, 2025 also delivered moments of legal clarity and progress. On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion affirming that states have binding obligations to protect the climate system. The Court confirmed that the 1.5°C temperature target under the Paris Agreement carries legal force and that breaches may entail obligations of cessation, guarantees of non-repetition, and reparations.
Later in the year, on October 22, 2025, the ICJ issued another advisory opinion with immediate humanitarian implications. The Court concluded that Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid to Gaza violated international law and reminded that the use of starvation as a method of warfare constitutes a war crime. As an occupying power, Israel was found to have both positive obligations to ensure supplies essential to civilian survival and negative obligations not to impede their provision.
These rulings underscore an essential point: international law is not aspirational rhetoric. It consists of binding obligations, authoritatively interpreted by courts whose legitimacy derives from the consent of states themselves.
International Law: Binding Obligations, Not Political Suggestions
These developments underscore a fundamental principle that must guide international discourse: International law is not a vocabulary of aspiration or a menu of optional norms. It is a system of binding legal obligations grounded in treaties, customary international law, and authoritative judicial interpretation. States consent to these obligations through ratification and long-standing practice, and they are bound regardless of power, politics, or convenience. The prohibition on the use of force, the protection of civilians, and the accountability mechanisms that enforce these rules exist precisely to restrain unilateral action and arbitrary power. Treating international law as a matter of political preference erodes the very structure designed to prevent conflict and protect human life.
This distinction matters most when courts and expert bodies apply settled legal frameworks to contested facts. When the International Court of Justice determines that the blocking of humanitarian aid can amount to the use of starvation as a method of warfare, it is not offering commentary; it is interpreting and applying international humanitarian law. Likewise, when UN expert mechanisms characterize certain military strikes as extrajudicial executions, they do so by reference to established legal definitions of arbitrary deprivation of life. These conclusions derive their authority from law and evidence, not from alignment with any political narrative.
A legally rigorous analysis, therefore, requires a disciplined focus on facts. Documentary evidence, such as medical records, satellite imagery, CCTV footage, and official communications, carries legal weight when assessed through recognized investigative methodologies. Authoritative interpretations from international courts, treaty bodies, and mandated UN investigators provide the legal framework within which those facts are evaluated. Political rhetoric, media framing, or reputational concerns cannot displace this process.
The role of legal professionals is especially critical at this juncture. Lawyers are not arbiters of geopolitical loyalty; they are custodians of legal method and principle. If an act constitutes a war crime or an extrajudicial killing under international law, it does so regardless of the identity of the perpetrator or the strategic justification offered. The same rules apply to allies and adversaries alike. Consistency in the application of legal standards is not naïveté; it is the foundation of legitimacy for the international legal order.
The past year has exposed both the resilience and the vulnerability of that order. Institutions such as the International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, and UN human rights mechanisms continue to function, issuing findings grounded in law and evidence. At the same time, we have seen growing resistance by powerful states to adverse legal determinations, including open disregard for binding obligations and attacks on those who document violations. This tension underscores a central truth: international law is only as effective as the collective willingness to respect and enforce it.
Ultimately, the choice is not between law and politics, but between law and arbitrariness. Upholding binding international legal standards affirms that facts matter, that courts matter, and that human lives are not subordinate to narrative control or strategic expediency. The stakes are not abstract. They are measured in civilian lives, environmental harm, and the credibility of law as a restraint on arbitrary power.
In this environment, the role of legal professionals is especially consequential. Lawyers, judges, and legal scholars are not advocates for political narratives but guardians of legal method, evidentiary discipline, and the rule of law. With that role comes a responsibility to educate the public with care: to explain legal findings accurately, to resist misinformation, and to reject the dangerous conflation of state conduct with entire peoples or faiths. This work requires a disciplined distinction between verified facts and rhetoric, and between authoritative legal determinations and political characterization. Findings issued by courts, treaty bodies, and mandated investigative mechanisms carry legal weight precisely because they are grounded in evidence, established methodology, and applicable legal frameworks. Personal views, media narratives, or geopolitical loyalties cannot displace that analysis. When legal professionals substitute opinion for evidence or apply legal standards selectively, they erode the credibility of the law itself. Upholding the rule of law, therefore, demands intellectual honesty, consistency, and the courage to apply legal principles evenly, especially when doing so is uncomfortable or politically unpopular.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.