By: Okoi Obono-Obla Nigeria has been embroiled in terrorism for the past fifteen years, an issue that has taken center stage an...
By: Okoi Obono-Obla
Nigeria has been embroiled in terrorism for the past fifteen years, an issue that has taken center stage and attracted the attention of the international community, particularly the United States of America.
On 25 December 2025, the U.S. military, in collaboration with partners, carried out strikes against terrorist enclaves operating under the Islamic State in the northwestern region of Nigeria, close to the border with Niger. Later, on 25 January 2025, the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed joint U.S.–Nigeria collaboration in similar strikes against IS bases.
Why Terrorism is a Cross-Border Crime
- Transnational Networks: Terrorist organizations form networks that span multiple countries, exploiting porous borders for recruitment, training, planning, and launching attacks.
- Movement Across Borders: Perpetrators, weapons, funds, and illicit goods (such as drugs and arms) are moved internationally to sustain terrorist operations.
- Impact Beyond Borders: The consequences of terrorism—instability, violence, and fear—extend across nations, undermining regional and global security.
- Nexus with Organized Crime: Terrorists often collaborate with organized criminal groups for funding (e.g., drug trafficking, kidnapping) and logistics, further complicating border security, as noted by UNODC and GCTF.
Justification for Cross-Border Counter-Terrorism Attacks:
Under the UN Charter, there are only two primary legal justifications for the use of force in another country’s territory:
1. Self-Defense (Article 51): A state has the inherent right to self-defense if an armed attack occurs. The legal debate centers on whether terrorist attacks by non-state actors reach the threshold of an “armed attack” and whether the host state is unable or unwilling to stop the threat.
2. UN Security Council Authorization: Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Do Terrorism Suppression Treaties Permit Intervention?
No. Terrorism suppression treaties do not explicitly grant one country the right to attack another under the guise of fighting terrorism. Instead, they:
- Mandate cooperation among states.
- Criminalize terrorist acts.
- Require states to prevent their territories from being used for terrorism.
All actions must remain within the framework of international law, including the UN Charter and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Unilateral military action is generally not sanctioned and must adhere to strict rules on self-defense, proportionality, and human rights.
Key Principles from Treaties and Resolutions
- Obligation to Act: States must adopt legislation to criminalize terrorism and prevent their territories from being used for terrorist activities.
- International Cooperation: Increased police and judicial cooperation, extradition, and intelligence sharing are mandated.
- Prohibition of Terrorism: UN Security Council resolutions unequivocally condemn terrorism as contrary to UN principles.
- Human Rights: Counter-terrorism measures must respect human rights and international law, with obligations to protect individuals.
The Nuance of the “Right to Attack”:
- Self-Defense: States may use force in self-defense if attacked, but this right is subject to necessity and proportionality. It is not a blanket license for preemptive strikes under the guise of counter-terrorism.
- International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Even in conflict, IHL prohibits targeting civilians, using disproportionate force, or spreading terror.
- No Explicit Right for Intervention: Counter-terrorism treaties emphasize domestic prevention and international cooperation, not unilateral military intervention in another sovereign state.
U.S.–Nigeria Collaboration in Context:
The January 2025 strike, confirmed by Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, illustrates how consent by the host state can legitimize foreign military involvement. While terrorism suppression treaties envisage cooperation primarily in legal, financial, and intelligence domains, Nigeria’s sovereign invitation to U.S. forces places the action within the broader spirit of international collaboration.
Thus, the legitimacy of such strikes rests not on the treaties themselves but on Nigeria’s consent, coupled with adherence to the UN Charter and IHL.
Conclusion:
Terrorism suppression treaties empower states to act against terrorism by strengthening legal frameworks and fostering cooperation. They do not create exceptions to the principles of sovereignty, self-defense, and human rights that govern the use of force in international law. The U.S.–Nigeria collaboration demonstrates that while treaties encourage cooperation, the legality of military action depends on sovereign consent and compliance with international law.
@ Okoi Obono-Obla
No comments