BY Evans Ufeli Esq
The account that the United States launched airstrikes in northwest Nigeria at presidential direction raises complex legal and international-policy questions. Whether the operation can be deemed lawful, and what its wider diplomatic and security consequences will be, depends on a matrix of facts (most critically: whether Nigeria consented; who was targeted; what intelligence supported the strikes; and whether civilians were harmed). Absent those specifics, the legal analysis rests on general principles of the use of force, international humanitarian and human-rights law, state responsibility, and domestic authorizations.
Core legal framework: use of force and consent
The starting point in international law is the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, while Article 51 preserves the inherent right of self-defence if an armed attack occurs. Outside these narrow bases, forcible military intervention in another state’s territory is presumptively unlawful unless it is with the consent of the territorial state or authorized by the UN Security Council.
If the Government of Nigeria expressly consented to U.S. strikes on its territory, the operation would, in principle, be lawful as a form of requested assistance against non-state armed groups. Consent must be genuine and not coerced; it should be demonstrable to avoid disputes about legality. By contrast, if the strikes occurred without Nigeria’s consent and absent Security Council authorization, the U.S. would likely be exposed to allegations of unlawful use of force. The U.S. might seek to justify unilateral action by invoking the right of self-defence against non-state actors; however, such claims are legally contentious and fact-sensitive. Contemporary state practice has at times accepted limited pre-emptive or collective self-defence against non-state actors (notably after 9/11), but customary international law requires necessity, immediacy, and proportionality (the “Caroline” test), as well as a clear nexus between the actor and an armed attack on the defending state. Applying those criteria to strikes in Nigeria would require evidence that the targeted group posed an imminent threat to U.S. persons or interests and that Nigeria was unable or unwilling to address that threat.
International humanitarian law and human rights obligations
If the strikes form part of an international or non-international armed conflict, international humanitarian law (IHL) governs conduct in hostilities. IHL obliges parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, to refrain from indiscriminate attacks, and to take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. Even in operations against terrorist groups, the obligation of proportionality requires that incidental civilian damage not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Alongside IHL, international human-rights law (IHRL) remains relevant, including extraterritorial application where a state exercises control over persons or territory. Human-rights norms restrict arbitrary deprivation of life and require accountability for unlawful deaths. Independent, credible investigation into any civilian casualties is therefore essential to meet both legal obligations and norms of legitimacy.
State responsibility, remedies, and international adjudication
If the strikes are unlawful, Nigeria could raise the matter diplomatically, bring it to the UN Security Council, or pursue legal recourse before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), seeking provisional measures or reparations. Practical obstacles; political considerations, the need to establish jurisdiction, and the generally high bar for ICJ intervention may limit immediate legal remedy, but political and reputational costs can be significant. The Security Council could censure or demand cessation, though its ability to act is often constrained by geopolitics.
Domestic legal implications for the United States
Domestically, the U.S. President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief is broad, but not unlimited. Depending on the nature and duration of the operation, the War Powers Resolution may require notification to Congress within 48 hours and termination of hostilities absent statutory authorization after a specified period. If the strikes are part of an ongoing campaign or involve sustained combat, Congressional authorization might be sought or litigation could arise challenging executive action. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the aftermath of 9/11 has been invoked for various counterterrorism operations, but its applicability to strikes in Nigeria would be legally debatable and politically contentious.
International relations, regional stability, and precedent
Beyond legality, the strikes carry important geopolitical consequences. If conducted with Nigeria’s consent, they could deepen security cooperation and intelligence-sharing; but even then, domestic public reaction in Nigeria—especially where civilian casualties occur or if the intervention is perceived as undermining sovereignty—could strain relations. If conducted without consent, the strikes could provoke a diplomatic crisis, inflame anti-American sentiment, and reduce cooperation against insurgents. Regional bodies such as the African Union or ECOWAS might condemn unilateral action, particularly if perceived as a violation of sovereignty or an escalation.
There is also a strategic risk of escalation and unintended consequences. Airstrikes can degrade militant capabilities in the short term but may radicalize local populations, provoke reprisals, or fragment groups into more diffuse cells, complicating counterterrorism efforts. The precedent of cross-border strikes against non-state actors seen in other theatres affects the international normative environment: routine acceptance of such operations risks eroding the Charter framework and lowering thresholds for interstate uses of force.
Accountability, transparency, and legitimacy
To mitigate legal and political harm, transparency and accountability are crucial. Publishing the legal basis for the strikes, intelligence assessments (subject to security constraints), and casualty assessments helps build legitimacy. Where civilian harm occurs, prompt, independent investigations and remediation (including restitution where appropriate) are necessary to meet legal obligations and reassure domestic and international audiences.
Read Also;
NIGERIA ’S UNFINISHED NATION
The lawfulness and international acceptability of U.S. airstrikes in Nigeria hinge on core facts: whether Nigeria consented, whether the strikes meet the narrow criteria for self-defence against non-state actors, and whether the operation complied with IHL and IHRL. Even lawful operations must be managed with rigorous adherence to civilian-protection obligations, credible oversight, and diplomatic engagement to prevent strategic fallout. Absent clarity and cooperation, unilateral strikes risk undermining state sovereignty norms, fueling regional instability, and provoking legal and political challenges; outcomes that complicate rather than resolve the underlying security threat.
