Table of Contents
Introduction
On October 31, 2025, Donald J. Trump, the current President of the United States, announced in a press conference aboard Air Force One his decision to place Nigeria on the United States’ list of countries of particular concern in response to what he perceives to be an ongoing genocide of the Nigerian Christian population. He followed this up with a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, later in the day.
In this post, he reaffirmed his decision to place Nigeria on the list of countries of particular concern, stating his belief that Christians in Nigeria are currently facing an existential threat of being wiped out by radical Islamic terrorists as the reason for this drastic decision. Without waiting for a response from the Nigerian Government, he made another post, this time in a less civil tone.
He charged the Nigerian Government to immediately put an end to what he perceives to be a genocide of Christians in Nigeria by radical Islamic groups, but this time his charge came with a threat. He clearly and unequivocally stated that if the Nigerian Government does not immediately stop the genocide, he would halt any and all aid and assistance the Nigerian Government receives from the United States.
He did not stop there; he further went on to declare his intention to send the United States Army into what he now describes as a disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” and directed his Department of War to prepare for such action. He ended his post with a warning, written in all caps, to the Nigerian Government: “BETTER MOVE FAST.”
Since these posts and threats by Donald J. Trump, there has been an uproar of opinions across Nigeria, with some siding with Trump, while others condemn the decision and threat of the U.S. President. This article is written for the purpose of enlightening readers on whether Trump legally has the right to act on his threat of moving troops onto Nigerian soil to fight radical Islamic terrorists without the consent of the Nigerian Government, and also on Nigeria’s possible recourse if the United States President acts on his threat. In order to do justice to these questions, we must first highlight what the United Nations, the universally recognized authority for settling intercountry disputes, has to say.
What Does International Law State?
According to international law, no state, regardless of its power or political influence, possesses the unilateral right to use force or invade another sovereign state without authorization. Therefore, Donald J. Trump does not have the legal right to act on his threat to invade Nigeria. The primary legal instrument that prohibits such an action is Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which expressly forbids the threat of, or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any member state.
The only two exceptions recognized under international law are:
1. Self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which applies only when an armed attack occurs against the United States or its allies; and
2. Authorization by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, where the Council determines that there is a threat to international peace and security and expressly permits collective military action.
International Law Application in Nigeria
Since Trump’s threat arises from what he perceives as internal human rights violations in Nigeria and not from any armed attack on the United States, it does not meet either of these exceptions. Acting unilaterally would therefore constitute a violation of international law, specifically an act of aggression under Article 1 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), which defines aggression as;
“the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.”
Should the United States proceed with such an invasion without UN authorization or Nigeria’s consent, it would expose itself to severe legal and political consequences. The United Nations Security Council could impose sanctions under Article 41 of the UN charter, such as economic restrictions, arms embargoes, and diplomatic isolation. Furthermore, the international community could refuse to recognize any territorial or political changes resulting from the invasion, in line with the principle that territory acquired through aggression cannot be lawfully recognized.
At the individual level, Donald J. Trump and senior officials complicit in the violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter could face personal criminal liability before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the crime of aggression, as defined in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. This precedent is rooted in the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials, where leaders were held personally accountable for planning and executing wars of aggression.
Russia/ Ukraine Example
In modern times, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 serves as a clear demonstration of the enforcement of these principles. Following Russia’s unprovoked use of force, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned the invasion, over 140 states demanded an immediate withdrawal, and sweeping economic and diplomatic sanctions were imposed by the United States, the European Union, and allied nations. Though the enforcement of international law often depends on political will, these measures show the reality that no state, not even the most powerful, is legally permitted to invade another sovereign nation without consequence.
Actions Nigeria as a Sovereign Nation Can Take
If President Trump were to act on his threat and authorize an invasion of Nigeria without consent or United Nations approval, Nigeria has several legal avenues for recourse under international law. The first and most immediate step would be to bring the matter before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, citing a “threat to international peace and security.”
Nigeria could demand an emergency session, during which the Council could pass a resolution condemning the act and call for an immediate cessation of hostilities. The Council also has the power to impose countermeasures such as economic and political sanctions on the United States or to mandate the withdrawal of its forces from Nigerian territory.
If the United States were to veto such a resolution in the Security Council — as a permanent member often can — Nigeria could still take the issue to the United Nations General Assembly under the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution (Resolution 377 A(V), 1950). This mechanism allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action when the Security Council is unable to act due to a veto. Such action may include widespread international condemnation, sanctions by member states, and non-recognition of any U.S. military or political claims arising from the invasion.
Furthermore, Nigeria could file a case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the customary international law principle of non-intervention. The ICJ has affirmed in past cases — notably in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda (2005) — that the use of force or intervention in another state’s internal affairs without consent constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Through this judicial route, Nigeria could seek a declaration of illegality, an order for cessation, and potentially reparations for damages resulting from the invasion.
Nigeria could also seek collective diplomatic and economic countermeasures through regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Both bodies uphold the principle of sovereign equality and territorial integrity under their founding charters and have the power to coordinate regional responses, ranging from diplomatic isolation of the aggressor to economic sanctions.
Conclusion
While the effectiveness of these measures may depend on the level of international political will and alignment among states, international law provides Nigeria with a clear framework to challenge and resist any unlawful act of aggression. By invoking these legal and diplomatic remedies, Nigeria would be affirming not only its own sovereignty but also the integrity of the international order built on the rule of law rather than force.
Written by Oladeji Ibukunoluwa
Other Matters Arising post here.
