The Power Struggle: Examining the Implications of International Law in the Face of Global Superpower

For centuries, the USA and Russia have held sway over the global stage. The historical Cold War stands testament to their past conflicts, prompting the question not of 'if' but 'when' the two superpowers might clash again. In an era of advanced warfare technologies, the potential for catastrophic damage looms large. This article delves into instances where international law has seemingly bypassed the USA and Russia. Furthermore, it contends that both historical and contemporary international law may prove insufficient in addressing and preventing a conflict between these formidable nations. The geopolitical landscape has witnessed enduring tensions between two global powerhouses – the United States of America and Russia. This article delves into the multifaceted aspects of their relationship, examining historical contexts, contemporary challenges, and potential implications for global stability.

Historical Backdrop:
The USA and Russia share a complex history marked by the Cold War, ideological clashes, and strategic maneuvering. Understanding the roots of their relationship is crucial to deciphering the dynamics at play in the present.


Contemporary Challenges:
Examining current geopolitical challenges sheds light on the evolving nature of USA-Russia relations. From regional conflicts to cyber warfare and interference in each other's spheres of influence, the nations grapple with a myriad of issues.
Military Posturing:
Both countries boast formidable military capabilities, leading to a constant game of strategic posturing. Nuclear arsenals, military alliances, and technological advancements contribute to the delicate balance of power.
Economic Interplay:
Economic factors, including energy resources, sanctions, and trade relations, play a pivotal role in shaping the USA-Russia dynamic. The impact of economic decisions reverberates globally, affecting markets and alliances.
Cybersecurity Concerns:
The digital realm has become a battleground for the USA and Russia. Cybersecurity threats, election interference, and information warfare add a new layer of complexity to their relationship.
Global Implications:
The repercussions of USA-Russia tensions extend far beyond their borders. International organizations, diplomatic relations, and global security frameworks are influenced by the actions and decisions of these two influential nations.
Diplomatic Initiatives:
Despite the challenges, diplomatic efforts persist. This section explores past and present attempts at dialogue, cooperation, and conflict resolution between the USA and Russia.
Future Scenarios:
Speculating on the future of USA-Russia relations involves considering various scenarios. Will tensions escalate, leading to a new Cold War? Or can diplomatic avenues pave the way for improved cooperation?


Diplomatic ties between Russia and the USA date back to 1809, but a significant rupture occurred during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. The USA chose not to recognize any formal relations until the resumption of normal diplomatic ties in 1933. Despite America's aspirations for a constructive relationship with Russia, evidenced by supporting Russia's Europeanization and fostering international trade, historical relations have been marred by persistent threats of the use of force.


While the provision is ostensibly binding on all member states, the Charter has arguably lost its relevance, particularly in the 21st century. In the case of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986), the USA was found to have employed unlawful force. However, the USA refused to engage in any international proceedings, citing non-recognition of the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction and effectively blocking the Security Council's enforcement of the judgment. This stance deprived Nicaragua of obtaining compensation for the conflict, as evidenced by the withdrawal of the court complaint in September 1992. Without delving extensively into historical analysis, the influence of the veto power was conspicuously evident in this case, with the USA seemingly leveraging financial and international sway to sway other countries into vetoing Nicaragua's claim against the USA.

Another instance where the USA appeared to disregard the prohibition of the use of force was its involvement in the Kosovo War. This armed conflict, spanning from February 28, 1998, to June 11, 1999, witnessed a significant rise in human casualties and displacement. Many international voices, including academics and politicians, argued that intervention was necessary to prevent an impending humanitarian catastrophe. Despite the lack of authorization from the United Nations Security Council for NATO's, particularly America's, involvement (as the USA led the bombing), the USA justified its actions as humanitarian intervention. It's worth noting that humanitarian intervention is not recognized as an exception under the UN Charter. Nevertheless, the bombing led to a de-escalation on all sides, ultimately concluding the Kosovo War. In the aftermath, the Yugoslav government and various international pressure groups, such as Amnesty International, alleged that NATO committed war crimes due to the bombing's impact on thousands of civilians unrelated to the conflict. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia reached the conclusion in this instance that:

"To the extent that the attack was specifically directed at disrupting the communications network, it was deemed legally acceptable. NATO's selection of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was considered an incidental, albeit complementary, objective alongside its primary goal of incapacitating the Serbian military command and control system and dismantling the nerve center and apparatus that sustained Milosević's hold on power."

Interestingly, the UN appears to have shifted its stance on the legality of NATO's intervention, stopping short of officially endorsing it as lawful. The international community, however, has deemed it necessary to prevent further devastation caused by the Kosovo War, considering NATO's actions as proportionate. The lingering question revolves around whether any other country, aside from the USA, would have faced penalties for spearheading the bombing. This inquiry is inherently challenging to answer and is not the focus of this article


In the 20th century, the Soviet military's inclination towards area-of-effect artillery and formidable armored firepower earned it the reputation of a 'large hammer always in search of nails.' This fear-inducing tactic has persisted, with Russia relying on the principle of using force as an integral part of a broader coercive bargaining process. From Ukraine to Syria, the Russian military is strategically deployed to apply just enough force to achieve policy objectives without overextending. Consequently, military goals emerge as subordinate to a political and diplomatic strategy, emphasizing coercion rather than conquest. In employing force as a political strategy, Russia arguably bypasses the constraints set by the UN Charter and its established thresholds.

In a recent instance, Russia appears to dismiss international law in the ongoing tensions between Belarus and Poland. Belarus, seen as a Kremlin-backed dictatorship, is accused of receiving Russian support to channel migrants, potentially facilitating military movements. While this action could be argued as lawful under Article 52 of the UN Charter (pertaining to private agreements) and humanitarian aid, it creates additional access points for the military into Belarus, notably through Ukraine. US intelligence reveals military camps near the borders, hinting at a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine with an estimated 175,000 troops as early as January 2022. The international community, including the USA, asserts that Russia is already violating international policies. Media reports suggest the USA may intervene, even without clear international legal standing. In the worst-case scenario, a global conflict (WW3) could unfold, leading to an International Criminal Tribunal post-conflict, addressing involved states as aggressors of war crimes. A more optimistic perspective envisions talks between Presidents Biden and Putin fostering understanding, while it falls upon the international community to condemn Russia's moves and impose sanctions. However, the age-old belief that one country has more right to war than another remains a constant in the history of warfare.

The inherent challenge with international law lies in the requirement for states to willingly accept it before it holds any binding power. Even when accepted, states can arguably override it on grounds of sovereignty and the equality of states, exemplified by Russia's actions with Belarus and Ukraine. Additionally, there is no independent body that regulates state affairs; the United Nations, consisting of member states, allows all states veto power, enabling them to influence decisions without requiring unanimity. Unfortunately, these factors are inherently defeatist, especially in dealing with two superpower states like Russia and the USA. Their sheer size, both geographically and politically, along with their military prowess, renders international law inadequate. Furthermore, even if international law were to penalize through economic sanctions, enforcement would prove challenging. The vastness of their central banks, the ability to receive funds from private institutions and conglomerates, and reliance on large populations for equity through potential tax increases make sanctions less impactful. Many countries depend on the USA, not vice versa, and Russia has established new global ties, particularly with the Middle East, China, and African nations. In the event of Western penalties, the Cold state may arguably still function effectively.

In conclusion, international law endeavors to play a role, yet it functions more as a buffer than a direct shield against acts of war, particularly concerning the USA and Russia. Consequently, international policy appears somewhat obsolete and requires substantial amendments to align with the dynamics of contemporary political relations and warfare.Also in a rapidly changing world, the interplay between the USA and Russia remains a focal point of global geopolitics. Navigating through historical echoes and contemporary challenges, the world watches as these two giants shape the course of international affairs.