A Critical Analysis: Speech of Donald Trump and International Law

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of Donald Trump's speech at the United Nations General Assembly on September 19, 2017, focusing on its implications for international law. The essay begins by introducing the role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security, highlighting the principles of the UN Charter regarding the use of force. It examines Trump's controversial statements, particularly his threats against North Korea, and assesses them in light of international legal standards. The discussion delves into key concepts such as the use of force, self-defense, and the protection of nationals, referencing relevant case laws like the Caroline Incident, Nicaragua v. United States, and Iran v. United States. The essay further explores the exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force, including self-defense and the protection of nationals, and analyzes the legal consequences of actions under international law. The essay also touches upon the legal implications of the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory. It concludes by evaluating the speech's adherence to international law and the potential consequences of violating these principles.

Running head: SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW
SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Introduction
The use of force in order to deal with the other countries are guided by the United
Nations (U.N) policies. The aim of the United Nations is to promote peace and tranquility
towards the world, establishment of human rights and international law. This paper will discuss
about the controversial speech made by the President of United States of America Mr. Donald
Trump in United Nations General Assembly meeting on 19th September, 2017 about the status of
United States of America with North Korean crisis. The President in the meeting has mentioned
about the power of the United States of America. The speech has been criticized as the most
violent speech in the United Nations. The President of America addressed to North Korea’s
leader Kim Jong Un as the “Rocket Man” and threatened North Korea if the Nuclear use was not
eliminated. According to Trump the United States of America is a strong nation and if it is
necessary to enforce the power in order to protect America or the allied nations then USA will
not go back to create a defense. Trump added if the circumstances arise then North Korea will be
totally destroyed and by criticizing Kim Jong Un added that all of the regime was on a self-
destruction assignment. This paper will discuss about the use of force, and the role of United
Nations to safeguard the rights of the states and the charters followed by the United Nations will
be discussed and situations where there are exceptions will be discussed with a variety of case
laws. It will discuss deeply about the expression use of force and the remedies available to the
nations for safeguarding the country.

2SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Discussion
United Nations (U.N.)
The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization and the goal of this organization
is to ensure peace and security on an international perspective, create a repo among the countries
and to serve harmony in the world. The United Nations came into existence after the World War
II and it came to eliminate further war situations in the world. The headquarter of United Nations
is situated at the New York city. In the year 1945 the governments of 50 countries met at the San
Fransisco and started the formation of the UN Charter. The Charters of United Nations was made
to conserve peace, uphold the human rights, provide sustainable development and humanitarian
aid1. The United Nations started with a member of 51 countries and at present the number has
increased by 193 countries2. At the introductory stage United Nations aim to protect the world
piece was very much complicated as because of the cold war situation between US and USSR
(Soviet Russia and the allied countries)3. Membership of United Nations increased gradually
from the year 1960 as the decolonization took place in the world. The organization consists of
six parts and they are- The General Assembly, The Security Council, The Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC), The Trusteeship Council and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and
The UN Secretariet.
The Use of Force
Article 2 (4) of the United Charter says every state in order to maintain the international
relation should be restrained from threat or use of force towards any other country which leads to
1Fassbender, Bardo. "The United Nations Charter as constitution of the international community." Colum. J.
Transnat'l L. 36 (1998): 529.
2 Simma, Bruno, ed. The charter of the United Nations. OUP, 1995.
3 McCauley, Martin. The Cold War 1949-2016. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

3SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
harm the political freedom of the country or any act contrary to the principle of the U.N. All the
members of the United Nations had approved this law. The United Nations General Assembly
resolution defined the term Aggression in Article 1. According to the definition, use of armed
force by a country in order to effect the other country on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence or any other act which are against the purpose of the Charters of the
United Nations can be considered as the Aggression. The element for aggression is considered as
the use of force and according to the U.N. Charter contravention of law is not allowed even at the
time of war situation4.
The use of force is barred according to the United Nations Charter however, there are
certain exceptions to use of force and those points can be described under follows5.
Self Defense
The first exception to the use of force is the self-defense. Article- 51 of the UN Charter
says that in case of any armed attack on any member country of the United Nation the victim
country can use the inherent power of self-defense until the security measures have been taken
by the Security Council to maintain the peace and tranquility. The member country who has
exercised the self-defense must communicate to the Security Council and it should not effect on
the security council responsibilities6.
The Caroline Incident (1837) was led to the independence movement involving the
United States, Britain and the Canada. On December 1837 Willian Lyon Mackenzie along with
other Canadian freedom fighters with support from the citizens of United States flew to an Island
in Niagra River in a ship named Caroline. The British Militants crossed the Niagra River to
4 Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, 2018.
5 Bowring, Bill. "The degradation of international law?." Law After Ground Zero. Routledge-Cavendish, 2017. 3-19.
6 Brunnée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope. "Self-Defence against Non-State Actors: Are Powerful States Willing but
Unable to Change International Law?." International & Comparative Law Quarterly 67.2 (2018): 263-286.

4SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
capture the ship. The ship was tied up in an Island which was under the United States
jurisdiction. In this incident two persons of United States were shot dead as a result of fight. The
British Militants placed fire to the ship and unanchored it in the Niagra River about two miles
above Niagra falls. The British private militants were criticized during such period and in the
Caroline incident Britain violated the rights of the people in the United States and Canada. As a
result the US people as well as the Canada captured the Caroline and it was finally destroyed.
The Caroline Test evolved from the above case and according to the test self-defense must be
instant and should not have any other choice7.
Nicaragua v. United States according to the facts of this case Nicaragua took an action
against United States because as per the submission of Nicaragua the US were responsible for
the illegal military and paramilitary action in and against Nicaragua8. The matter came before the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the as per the decision of the court it was held by the ICJ
that United States was responsible for the use of force. The United States challenged the decision
taken by the ICJ by stating that ICJ had no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
Iran v. United States in the year 1992 the government of the Iran filed in court an
application related to take action against the United States of America for the attack made by the
United States Navy on three oil production complexes in Iran, which were in use for commercial
purposes9. The government of Iran was the owner of those oil production complexes which were
destroyed in the year of 1987 and 1988 respectively. Iran claimed that the act of United States
was a breach of treaty, which was made between US and Iran on 15th August 1955 at Tehran.
The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights was also known as the 1955
7 Oppenheim, Lassa. International law. A treatise. Vol. 2. BoD–Books on Demand, 2018.
8 Thirlway, Hugh. The sources of international law. Oxford University Press, 2019.
9 Allain, Jean. International law in the Middle East: closer to power than justice. Routledge, 2017.

5SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Treaty. As per the treaty the court had the jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute. The application
was communicated to the United States and the court fixed dates to file the Claims by Iran and
Counter Claims by the United States. The United States made a preliminary objection related to
the jurisdiction of the court. In the year 1996 the court rejected the preliminary objection made
by the US by stating the proper articles in the Treaty that the court had jurisdiction to hear the
claims of Iran. In the Counter Memorial US made a statement related to Iran’s action in the year
1987 to 1988 led to mining and additional strike to the ships owned by US. Iran did not validate
the claim of counter claim by stating that it was not full filling the rules made in the Treaty and
wanted to submit an objection against the counter claim though the court held that the counter
claim by US had connection with the dispute. After all the hearings and evidences examined by
the court came to a conclusion in the year of 2003 the International Court of Justice rejected
both claims of Iran and the United States. It was observed by the court that attack of US on the
oil platforms in the year 1987 and 1988 though failed to meet the Treaty’s security exception
however the attack did not breach the freedom of commerce expressed in the treaty. The claim of
Iran was not able establish and the counter claim of the United States for compensation was also
rejected.
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v.
Uganda) In this case the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgement on 2005 the
court observed that Uganda was responsible for the use of force in international relations and it
also violated the the International Human Rights law and Humanitarian law10. The violent force
was used against the Democratic Republic of Congo and many other obligations with respect to
Congo was violated by Uganda. However ICJ also found that Congo was also responsible for the
violation under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Finally ICJ found that
10 Quigley, John. The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Routledge, 2016.

6SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Uganda was responsible for the compensation towards the injured persons in Democratic
Republic of Congo.
Legal consequences of the Construction of Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in
this incident the wall was constructed by the Israel on the territory of Palestine and affected on
the liberty of the Palestinians11. The International Courts of Justice were asked to come into the
matter when the Israel was not listened to the direction of the General Assembly to stop the
construction of the wall. It was decided by the ICJ that violation of International law, fourth
Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and the resolution taken by the Security Council and
General Assembly of the United Nations. Israel made responsible for creating obstruction to the
freedom of movement as described under the International Covenants on Civil and Political
Rights. Israel also contributed to harm the rights of the Palestinians related to work, healthcare
and a stable lifestyle under the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and UN Convention on the
rights of the child. The court observed both the states in prospect to the international law need to
follow the liabilities under the international law and in order to reduce the conflict between both
the states resolution by Security Council must be followed. However Justice Higgins had a
different opinion for this he observed that ICJ should look at the bigger picture other than just
looking at the part of the dissension. The protection of the rights of the citizens are considered as
the paramount objective and it should not be dealt with carelessness but the construction of wall
diminished the aggressive situations faced by the Israel citizens.
Protection of Nationals
The protection of nationals is very much needed in the present day situations. This
doctrine is known as the most controversial doctrine in the world. The use of armed forces by a
11Vallet, Elisabeth. Borders, fences and walls: State of insecurity?. Routledge, 2016.

7SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
country in order to protect the citizens of its own who is residing in any other state comes under
this doctrine. The country use the military force outside the territory of its own in order to rescue
the citizens is a right generally exercised by the States12. As per Sir Humphery Waldock three
essential conditions must be full filled in order to exercise the right, firstly an impending threat
of injury to the nationals, secondly the nationals are not able to get protection from the other
state, thirdly measures of protection strictly confined to the object of protecting them against
injury.
Present situation shows that in order to protect their own citizens, and in certain
circumstances citizens of the other country where the situation in a country is worst to live can
be rescued by the Military forces of the State. Presently the Non-Combatant Evacuation
Operations (NEO) is the generally used term for the use of force in order to protect the nationals.
This concept of NEO has developed gradually by the actions of the states13. This right is limited
to safeguard of an individual from the hostile situation in a state and with the help of the military
forces to move towards a safe location. This doctrine had exercised by various states and at
different time. The UN Charters when came into existence the questions raised by different
countries for the right to protect the national in a foreign state. In the year 1956 the United
Kingdom in Suez, in 1976 the Israel in Entebbe-Uganda, the US force in the Dominican
Republic in 1965, Panama in 1989 and Grenada in 1983. The use of force must be in accordance
with the Article- 51 of the Charter and it should not contravene the Article-2 (4) of the Charter
without reasonable purpose14. However the use of force in many cases shows the colour of other
political intention instead of securing the individuals. The intercession of US army in Grenada in
12 Salako, Solomon E. "Forcible protection of nationals abroad and humanitarian intervention: might or
right?." International Law Reseach 5.1 (2016).
13 Corn, Geoffrey, Ken Watkin, and Jamie Williamson. The law in war: a concise overview. Routledge, 2018.
14 Williamson, Myra. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in
2001. Routledge, 2016.

8SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
the year of 1983 related only with a political issue because the US opposition’s concept of
socialism was increasing in the government of Grenada. The attack was criticized by many states
including Canada and the United Nations marked the incident as the blatant violation of the
international law. In most of the cases mentioned above masked under the protection of nationals
but it was made for political action.
Humanitarian Intervention
Article- 2 (7) of the U.N. Charter says that present charter is not authorized to intervene
the United Nations into the domestic activities of a state and the member nation is not needed to
address the activities to the UN. This principle must not contravene the application under
Chapter VII.
Humanitarian Intervention is a facility to take precaution or stop the violation of human
rights in a state where such state is unable to protect the human rights or it has unwillingness to
protect its own citizens. The period of 1990 was identified as the period of Humanitarian
Intervention. The UN considered the interference of force on the ground of Humanitarian
perspective at that period of time. The Security Council even encouraged this principle during
that time. Sanction from the Security Council made Humanitarian ground as the legitimate one15.
Humanitarian intervention was observed in The United Nations Security Councils
Resolution 1973 on the situation in Libya and it was adopted on 17th March 2011. It aimed at the
military interference because of the Civil war in Libya. The resolution sanctioned internationally
to create a no fly zone on Libya and encouraged Libya to demand the all the necessary things
from the member countries in order to protect the citizens of Libya. The ban on flights are not
made for the flights which are used for the humanitarian ground such as flights which are
15Weiss, Thomas G. Humanitarian intervention. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

9SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
involved in providing healthcare, food, medical facility towards the people and to take away the
foreign nationals. This resolution is known as the authorized one16.
However the NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in the year 1999 was unauthorized. North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the member of the United Nations and bound to follow
the UN Charter like the other members of the UN. In the year 1999 NATO supported the Kosovo
for bombing in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to protect the Kosovo’s Albanian
population. NATO had not acquired the permission from the Security Council before entering
into such bombing in Yugoslavia. The supporters of NATO observed it was justified because
such bombing stopped Yugoslavia to eliminate the ethnic group of Albanian however the critics
made statements in favour of the United Nation by saying that the act of NATO destroyed the
buildings and deaths took place17.
The speech of Donald Trump in the United Nations General Assembly Meeting on 19th
September 2017 was a controversial one and it was a violent speech which has been criticized by
the world18. The President of US addressed the North Korea as criminal for nuclear weapons and
missiles. Trump threated the North Korea by showing the strength of United States by adding
that if the use of force is needed to defend the US and the allied states then he will have no
option other than destroying the North Korea. The leader of North Korea was addressed as a
Rocket man and he also added that the leader and the regime both were on a suicide mission. If
the necessity arise then the United Nations is ready for the action. The United States as a member
of the United Nations should never go against the purpose of the United Nations. United Nations
16 Doyle, Michael W. "The politics of global humanitarianism: The responsibility to protect before and after
Libya." International Politics 53.1 (2016): 14-31.
17 Voon, Tania. "Legitimacy and Lawfulness of Humanitarian Intervention." International Intervention in the Post-
Cold War World: Moral Responsibility and Power Politics. Routledge, 2017. 40-59.
18 Dombrowski, Peter, and Simon Reich. "Does Donald Trump have a grand strategy?." International Affairs 93.5
(2017): 1013-1037.

10SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
was one of the signatories in the UN Charter in the year of 1945. The Constitution of the United
Nations rule it necessary to follow all the treaties that have made or which will made under the
authorization of the United States and as per the Constitution, those treaties are the law of the
land19. The Charter under the United Nation is considered as a treaty which should be considered
as law by the United States. It has seen as a trend by the United States that it does not care about
the International law but the statements made Donald Trump just crossed the line. Article- 1 of
the UN Charter describes about the Aggression by a state the statements made by Trump comes
the true definition of Aggression. Article 2 (4) of the Charter says about the use of force and as
per the Article the UN prohibits to apply the use of force by a country. Use of threat or use of
force which effects on the territorial integrity and political independence of a state. The speech of
the President was amount to threat to the North Korea because Trump mentioned that US could
use the force to destroy the North Korea. However, Article- 51 of the Charter talks about the
self-defense can be exercised by the states but in order to use the power it must follow the
guidelines provided by the UN Charter. Self-defense can be exercised under narrow conditions
and the conditions were identified by the US Secretary of State Daniel Webster the attack should
be instant and there must be no other choice for a state. As per Article-51 the role of Security
Council is necessary and the state is eligible to take self-defense until the Security Council has
taken any resolution related to such matter. A country used the self-defense then it is the duty of
that state to communicate to the Security Council because the Council’s work to establish peace
and security towards the people must not be hindered. Donald Trump in his speech should have
mentioned about the Security Council involvement to take necessary action in case of North
Korea but the President completely ignored the role of Security Council. The United States of
America is powerful state but it must not violate the constitutional guidelines so if any attack is
19 Dodge, William S. "Customary International Law, Change, and the Constitution." Geo. LJ 106 (2017): 1559.

11SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
made to North Korea then the state should not explain that the self defense doctrine has been
used. The attack on the North Korea will also not get the protection under Humanitarian
Perspective because North Korea’s every nationals are not involved in the use of nuclear
weapons and missiles. If the U.S. completely destroy the country it will not leave the innocent
individuals and it will also violates the right to life under Article- 6 of International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)20. The former presidents of The United States never restrict
their actions by following the United Nations but made efforts in speech that the intention to
violate the UN principles were not the objective.
Conclusion
Therefore from the above discussion it can be concluded that use of force by the states is
prohibited by the United Nations. This paper discussed about the exceptions to the use of force
as enshrined under Article- 51 of the Charter which is known as the Self -Defense which must be
used as per the guidelines. The speech of the President of the United States was considered as too
harsh for the international law. The United States is a member of United Nation an organization
who aimed to establish the peace and security in the World. In a General Assembly meeting
Donald Trump should have arrange the speech as a diplomatic way other than just threatening
the North Korea about the danger. History of the world observed so many times the use of force
by the states in order to meet the political criteria rather than saving the people on humanitarian
ground. War and attacks were made under the mask of Self-defense which were against the
purpose of United Nations. The United States is a country who had showed the power in a drastic
level without caring about the international law. In order to restrict the countries and protect the
international law the United Nations and the other bodies of United Nations must create strict
20 Schabas, William A. "International law and the abolition of the death penalty." Comparative Capital Punishment.
Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.

12SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
rules. UN should set some examples towards the world which will make the states think before
violating the international peace and security. The powerful members of the United Nations
should use the power to establish peace and tranquility in the world and the power should not be
used in order to destroy the people. The United Nations should be considered as the guardian of
international law and every single country should obey the guardian before making an action
against the other country. The world is a family and every country must not go against their own
family members and it is a high time to behave in harmony.

13SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
References
Allain, Jean. International law in the Middle East: closer to power than justice. Routledge, 2017.
Bowring, Bill. "The degradation of international law?." Law After Ground Zero. Routledge-
Cavendish, 2017. 3-19.
Brunnée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope. "Self-Defence against Non-State Actors: Are Powerful
States Willing but Unable to Change International Law?." International & Comparative Law
Quarterly 67.2 (2018): 263-286.
Corn, Geoffrey, Ken Watkin, and Jamie Williamson. The law in war: a concise overview.
Routledge, 2018.
Dodge, William S. "Customary International Law, Change, and the Constitution." Geo. LJ 106
(2017): 1559.
Dombrowski, Peter, and Simon Reich. "Does Donald Trump have a grand
strategy?." International Affairs 93.5 (2017): 1013-1037.
Doyle, Michael W. "The politics of global humanitarianism: The responsibility to protect before
and after Libya." International Politics 53.1 (2016): 14-31.
Fassbender, Bardo. "The United Nations Charter as constitution of the international
community." Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 36 (1998): 529.
Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, 2018.
McCauley, Martin. The Cold War 1949-2016. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

14SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Oppenheim, Lassa. International law. A treatise. Vol. 2. BoD–Books on Demand, 2018.
Quigley, John. The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Routledge, 2016.
Salako, Solomon E. "Forcible protection of nationals abroad and humanitarian intervention:
might or right?." International Law Reseach 5.1 (2016).
Schabas, William A. "International law and the abolition of the death penalty." Comparative
Capital Punishment. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019.
Simma, Bruno, ed. The charter of the United Nations. OUP, 1995.
Thirlway, Hugh. The sources of international law. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Vallet, Elisabeth. Borders, fences and walls: State of insecurity?. Routledge, 2016.
Voon, Tania. "Legitimacy and Lawfulness of Humanitarian Intervention." International
Intervention in the Post-Cold War World: Moral Responsibility and Power Politics. Routledge,
2017. 40-59.
Weiss, Thomas G. Humanitarian intervention. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
Williamson, Myra. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against
Afghanistan in 2001. Routledge, 2016.