Unilateral Actions of the United States of America in the Fields of International Law, Migration and the Environment
Introduction
State intervention in the internal affairs of other countries and recourse to unilateral measures, constitute among the most significant and complex issues of the contemporary international order; issues that lie at the intersection of international law, global politics, security, human rights, and social justice. In recent decades, the intensification of geopolitical, economic, climatic, and security crises on the one hand, and the expansion of human mobility and the phenomena of migration and refugeehood on the other, have resulted in the policies of major powers—particularly the United States of America—producing far-reaching and structural cross-border effects on the lives of millions of individuals and on the coherence of the international legal order.
The present booklet, focusing on the unilateral actions of the United States in the fields of international law, migration, and the environment, seeks to analyze the nexus between policy, law, and the human consequences of these decisions. On the one hand, it examines the impacts of such policies on the situation of migrants, refugees, racial and religious minorities, and vulnerable groups; on the other hand, it critically assesses these actions within the framework of the fundamental principles of international law—including the principle of non-intervention, the prohibition of the use of force, peremptory norms, human rights obligations, and the environmental responsibilities of states.
The objective of this work is not merely to recount a series of political or legal events; rather, it represents an effort to demonstrate the reality that decisions ostensibly internal to a powerful state can entail extensive consequences for human security, the legitimacy of multilateralism, and the credibility of the international legal system. The booklet of the United Nations Association of Iran, drawing upon international instruments, judicial practice, reports of specialized organizations, and academic analyses, provides a platform for dialogue and critical reflection, enabling the reader to better comprehend the relationship between power, normativity, and responsibility within the context of contemporary international law.
Accordingly, the discussions presented in this booklet aim to show why and how unilateral measures, even when framed in terms such as security, counter-terrorism, or border management, can give rise to structural challenges in the areas of human rights, the right to development, environmental justice, and the stability of the international order. From this perspective, the subject under examination is not merely a narrowly defined legal issue, but rather part of a broader process of transformation and tension within today’s global order.
Chapter 1:
Unilateral Interventions by the United States in Other Countries and the Violation of Peremptory Norms of International Law
Contemporary international law is founded upon respect for state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations explicitly prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states[1], and recognizes only one exception, set forth in Article 51[2], concerning self-defence in response to an armed attack.
Despite this, in recent decades the United States has repeatedly intervened in various countries, whether through direct military action or through political and economic pressure. These interventions have not only challenged the international legal order, but in many instances have been declared unlawful by international bodies. The International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly have consistently emphasized the principle of non-intervention. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 2131 and 2625[3] define friendly relations among states on the basis of respect for political independence and non-intervention. The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice has likewise demonstrated that, in numerous cases, United States actions have been in conflict with these principles.
When discussing United States interventions in different countries, we are not merely confronted with a series of isolated incidents; rather, we face a recurring pattern that has developed over decades and has been repeatedly examined within the field of international law. This pattern indicates that the United States, as a major power, has in many instances employed military, economic, and political instruments to advance its objectives; instruments that have frequently come into conflict with the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and the peremptory norms of international law. Unilateral actions, or in other words, United States interventions, are clearly observable across numerous cases and situations, and international bodies particularly, the International Court of Justice have formally examined the legality of U.S. conduct. These cases not only provide concrete evidence of violations of the principle of non-intervention and the prohibition of the use of force, but also offer practical benchmarks for assessing state behavior within the international system. In other words, each case represents a tangible instance of the intersection between the general rules of the United Nations Charter and political and military realities; an intersection that reveals the extent to which these rules are capable of regulating state conduct and exercising binding force.
From Nicaragua in the 1980s to Iran in the Oil Platforms case, from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to military operations in Panama and the long-standing sanctions against Cuba and Venezuela, all these instances present a clear picture of the challenges involved in implementing peremptory norms and the limitations of self-defence. These examples illustrate how the gap between legal principles and political realities can lead to a crisis of legitimacy within the international system. In what follows, some of the most significant cases in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice relating to United States interventions in other countries will be briefly examined, in order to clarify the legal dimensions of these actions within the framework of international law.
● In the case of Nicaragua v. United States, Nicaragua accused the United States of providing military and financial support to insurgent forces known as the “Contras” and of mining its ports. After examining the evidence, the International Court of Justice declared that these actions constituted a clear violation of the principle of non-intervention and an unlawful use of force. The significance of this case lay in the Court’s explicit statement that even indirect support for insurgents may amount to a breach of international law[4]. This judgment is regarded as a turning point in consolidating the principle of non-intervention as a peremptory norm.
● During the Iran–Iraq War, the United States attacked Iranian oil platforms in 1987 and 1988, claiming that these actions were undertaken in the exercise of self-defence. After reviewing the evidence and the claims of both parties, the International Court of Justice ultimately held that the United States had failed to establish the existence of an armed attack by Iran, and that self-defence was therefore not applicable in this context[5]. This case demonstrated that self-defence must be subject to strict criteria such as necessity and proportionality, and cannot be invoked as a justification for pre-emptive or politically motivated actions.
● The attack by the United States and its allies on Iraq without authorization from the Security Council constitutes one of the most prominent examples of a violation of the United Nations Charter in the twenty-first century. The then Secretary-General of the United Nations[6] described this action by the United States as illegal[7]. This war not only resulted in widespread instability in the region, but also severely undermined the credibility of the international legal system. This event illustrates that reliance on an imminent threat or weapons of mass destruction, without Security Council authorization, cannot provide a legitimate legal basis.
● The U.S. military operation to overthrow the former officer and military leader in Panama[8] represents another instance of United States military intervention without Security Council authorization. Many states in the United Nations General Assembly considered this action to be a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter[9]. This event demonstrated that even where the United States claims to be promoting democracy or combating corruption, unilateral military action cannot be reconciled with the principles and rules of international law.
Unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States against Cuba have continued since the 1960s. Each year, the United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution condemning these sanctions and considering them contrary to international law and the principle of non-intervention[10]. This example illustrates that economic measures can also constitute unlawful intervention, particularly when they have a direct impact on the right to development and the welfare of a country’s population.
● In recent years, the United States has imposed extensive sanctions against Venezuela, seized oil tankers, issued military threats, and has even recently carried out a military operation and abducted Maduro and his spouse from Venezuela to the United States. Reports submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council[11] have confirmed that these sanctions have had negative effects on human rights and on the population’s access to medicine and food[12]. These actions constitute a contemporary example of unlawful United States interventions that have not only violated Venezuela’s political independence, but have also affected the fundamental rights of its people.
United States interventions raise fundamental questions within international law regarding the effectiveness and coherence of this system. The United Nations Charter and its supplementary instruments, including the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation[13], as well as the international human rights covenants[14], have outlined a framework intended to regulate state conduct in international relations. However, when major powers repeatedly violate these rules, the central question arises as to whether this system is capable of preserving its own credibility.
On the one hand, principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, and the right of peoples to self-determination are recognized as peremptory norms, and their violation not only calls into question the legitimacy of the offending state’s actions, but also destabilizes the entire international order. On the other hand, the responses of international bodies, whether through judgments of the International Court of Justice or resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly demonstrate that the international community continues to emphasize the importance of these principles, even if their practical implementation faces challenges.
This duality between norm and reality constitutes the very point at which numerous challenges have emerged within the international legal system. International law is not merely a collection of rules, but a system whose credibility derives from collective acceptance and implementation. Therefore, each time a major power violates these rules, not only is another state harmed, but the foundations of the global legal order are also placed at risk. Such a situation raises the question of what the future of this system will be, and what mechanisms exist for rebuilding trust in it.
Answering this question requires attention to the institutional and normative capacities of the international community. International practice has shown that the mere existence of written rules in international law is insufficient; their effective implementation requires the collective will of states and effective supervisory mechanisms. Strengthening the role of the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, enhancing the status of peremptory norms, and developing accountability mechanisms for major powers can form part of these solutions. Emphasizing human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination in international instruments serves as a reminder that the legitimacy of the global legal system does not stem from military power, but from broad acceptance and genuine compliance by states with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Such an approach provides the groundwork for rebuilding confidence in international law.
The cases and international instruments discussed are more than mere historical evidence; they are indicators of a broader trend, one in which major powers, under political and security justifications, shift legal boundaries, while international institutions and civil society seek to re-establish them. This ongoing struggle between power and norm will shape the future of international law. What has been examined thus far is not merely a narration of the past, but a reflection of the challenges facing international law today and in the future. United States interventions as a powerful actor on the international stage, whether military or economic, demonstrate that legal rules without enforcement guarantees and without the collective will of states are at risk of becoming obsolete. Moreover, international law is not merely a tool for regulating relations among states; it is a shared language through which the global community pursues legitimacy, justice, and responsibility.
Accordingly, it becomes evident that the unlawful interventions of the United States of America must be viewed not merely as violations of legal principles, but as a serious challenge to the capacity and credibility of the international legal system as a whole. This system can preserve its authority and binding force only if it is capable of confronting such challenges, through mechanisms that ensure accountability, by strengthening the status of fundamental norms, and by linking legal principles to the real needs of human beings. Only in this way can international law move beyond the level of written rules and evolve into a living and effective system; a system that not only prevents unlawful interventions, but also fosters cooperation, justice, and sustainable peace in international relations.
Chapter 2:
Unilateral Actions of the United States in the Field of Migration
From the earliest periods of human history, human beings have always been on the move. Some migrate in search of employment or economic opportunities, to reunite with family members, or to pursue education. Others are forced to flee because of conflict, persecution, or widespread violations of human rights. Still others migrate as a result of the adverse effects of climate change, natural disasters, or other environmental factors. In essence, a migrant may be defined as a person who moves from his or her habitual place of residence, either within a country or across international borders, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons[15]. Today, more than ever before, people are living in countries other than their country of birth. According to statistics from the United Nations Department of Population, in 2024 the number of international migrants worldwide reached 304 million, nearly double the figure recorded in 1990. International migrants account for 3.7 per cent of the world’s population. Women constitute 48 per cent of international migrants. While most people migrate by choice, some do so under compulsion. The United Nations Refugee Agency has estimated that by the end of 2024 the world was hosting approximately 43.7 million refugees, including 6 million Palestinian refugees and around 8 million asylum seekers[16]. Pursuant to Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality and has a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and who is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country. This definition forms the basis of the right to seek asylum and encompasses the principle of non-refoulement, under which the host country may not return a refugee to the country of origin where his or her life or freedom would be at risk[17].
The migrant population in the United States comprises diverse groups. These include newly arrived refugees from Southeast Asia whose families subsequently join them, as well as White and Black individuals who migrate in search of better economic opportunities. This population faces numerous social and familial challenges. Among these challenges are poverty, adaptation to a new culture, access to education, housing and employment, separation from family members, financial stress and pressure, and differences in family roles and responsibilities. In order to address these issues, policies must focus on local management and the provision of direct services such as education and support. Despite the adoption of new immigration laws, the economic and social challenges facing this population persist, and poverty and educational difficulties among them are on the rise[18].
One of the primary concerns of migrants in the United States is the complete suspension of the processing of cases for all nationals of countries subject to the travel ban. The countries covered by the travel ban include 19 states, as referenced in the most recent executive order issued by Donald Trump under the title of the travel ban. Under this order, officials of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were instructed to halt the processing of all immigration benefits, including both permanent and temporary statuses within the United States, for individuals from these countries. This suspension of processing appears to encompass all categories, ranging from applications for green cards and citizenship to employment applications and even requests for changes or extensions of non-immigrant status. In this manner, the U.S. government would neither review such applications nor render decisions on them, and even interviews that form part of the process were cancelled. Across the country, migrants from the affected countries reported that their citizenship interviews had been cancelled. The duration of this suspension remains unspecified. The memorandum issued claims that the suspension is necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of both individual cases and the agency’s security and vetting policies. USCIS was instructed to issue implementing guidelines within 90 days. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the suspension will end at the conclusion of this period, be modified, or be extended[19]. As an example, reference may be made to Donald Trump’s statements regarding Somali migrants. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, stated that he did not want Somali migrants in America and told reporters that they should return to where they came from. During a Cabinet meeting, he stated: “To be honest, I do not want them in our country.” Trump further asserted that if the country continued to import “garbage,” the United States would be headed in the wrong direction[20].
With regard to the suspension and termination of the processing of migrants’ cases, according to an official internal memorandum observed by the BBC News network, the United States has halted the processing of all immigration applications related to 19 countries that had previously been subject to the travel ban. Immigration officers were instructed to “stop final processing of all cases” and to suspend naturalization ceremonies for migrants on the verge of acquiring citizenship. This action has been taken amid reports that Donald Trump is considering expanding his executive order to increase the number of countries subject to the travel ban from 19 to 30. The White House identified 19 countries, primarily in Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean, that would face full or partial immigration restrictions. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had announced that it would re-examine green card visas issued to migrants from travel-ban countries. The memorandum, which clarifies the extensive restrictions imposed, states: “This suspension includes all types of forms and any final decisions (approval or denial), as well as the holding of any oath ceremonies.” Matthew Tragesser, a spokesperson for USCIS, confirmed the suspension to The New York Times, stating: “The Trump administration is doing everything it can to ensure that those who become citizens are the best of the best. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.”[21]
All applicants for H-1B and H-4 visas, regardless of nationality, will be subject to more extensive scrutiny and vetting and will be required to set the privacy settings of all their social media profiles to public, as applicants for F, M and J visas are currently required to do, so that consular officers can review these profiles and identify applicants who are barred from entering the United States, including individuals who are considered a threat to U.S. national security or public safety, and those who intend to harm Americans and U.S. national interests. With respect to Afghan nationals, the U.S. Department of State has suspended the issuance of both immigrant and non-immigrant visas to individuals traveling on Afghan passports in order to conduct further reviews. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has also halted the processing of all immigration applications by Afghan nationals, including applications for work authorization[22].
The Trump administration also fully banned the entry of nationals of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and prohibited the entry of nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela under immigrant visas or B, F, M, or J visas. Collectively, these countries are referred to as the 19 travel-ban countries.
A comprehensive review of approved petitions, including green cards, for nationals of these 19 countries who entered the United States on or after 20 January 2021 will be initiated. In addition, the processing of petitions, including work visas and green cards, for individuals who were born in or are nationals of any of these countries has been suspended in order to subject them to the maximum possible level of review and vetting. Their nationality or country of birth will be considered a significant negative factor, increasing the likelihood of denial of their applications. In addition to the travel ban imposed on designated countries by the U.S. government, it should also be noted that one of the other major concerns of migrants relates to the severe restrictions imposed on all asylum applicants and asylum seekers with respect to entry into, residence in, and employment within the United States of America. This issue affects employers’ ability to renew work authorization for their employees and to facilitate their travel[23].
In addition to the issues mentioned above, reference may be made to the situation of Black migrants, noting that Black Muslims have always constituted an important part of the history of this country. Black Muslims account for approximately one third of Muslims in the United States and have played a significant role in the expansion and entrenchment of Islam in the country. Nevertheless, throughout U.S. history they have faced racism and injustice more than other groups. Black Muslims, as a group, confront a range of problems arising both from racism against Black people and from Islamophobia. In addition to religious discrimination, they experience the same racial discrimination that other Black Americans face on a daily basis[24].
Another issue that may be highlighted concerns analyses of the relationship between fear of deportation and the impact of immigration policies on various aspects of the everyday lives of Latino migrants. The findings indicate that participants who experienced greater fear of deportation were significantly more likely to report the following experiences: difficulty in retaining employment, difficulty in finding a job, being asked to present immigration documents, family hardship and distress, reduced trust that the police would treat Latino migrants fairly, reduced trust that courts would treat Latino migrants fairly, and reduced confidence in having a better future. As a result, these conditions have produced harmful consequences for this group of migrants[25].
Moreover, migrants who lack legal authorization to reside or work in the United States face major difficulties in accessing medical services, resulting in poorer health outcomes compared to others. They often become homeless, as they lack access to affordable housing, suitable employment, and social support, face language barriers, and fear deportation. This homelessness and fear give rise to stress, anxiety, and physical illnesses, highlighting the need for specialized medical services. However, these individuals typically lack health insurance, have insufficient financial resources, face linguistic and cultural barriers, and are unable to benefit from public insurance schemes. If they are homeless, access to assistance, understanding the health-care system, and confronting discrimination become even more difficult. Consequently, there is a need for reform of immigration laws and the implementation of equitable policies to ensure access to health care. Practical solutions include providing culturally appropriate medical services, establishing mobile clinics, cooperating with charitable organizations, advocating for the rights of these individuals, and collecting more accurate data[26].
In conclusion, the migrant population in the United States of America comprises diverse groups that relocate for economic, familial, political, or environmental reasons, many of whom face extensive social, economic, and legal challenges. Legal restrictions, racial and religious discrimination, fear of deportation, and limited access to essential services adversely affect their quality of life and health. The implementation of supportive policies, the provision of social and medical services, and the guarantee of equal rights can reduce poverty, discrimination, and the psychological and social harms they experience. Such measures are of particular importance for enhancing the welfare and security of migrants.
Chapter 3:
The Consequences of the United States of America’s Non-Compliance with Environmental Obligations
The unilateralism of the United States of America in the field of climate governance, particularly through its temporary withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, constitutes one of the most salient manifestations of the tension between national sovereignty and international obligations in international environmental law. This approach does not merely signify non-participation in a multilateral treaty; rather, it entails deeper consequences for transboundary legal regimes, climate justice, and the international protection of human rights beyond the borders of the United States.
Given the United States’ substantial historical contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and its structural role in the financing and transfer of climate technologies, the withdrawal from or non-compliance with environmental commitments by this country produces disproportionate effects on countries of the Global South, particularly least developed countries and small island developing States. This report seeks to demonstrate that U.S. unilateralism has not only weakened global climate governance but may also, within the framework of customary international law and human rights law, trigger the international responsibility of the State. Moreover, the United States of America has imposed significant pollution on neighboring countries such as Canada and Mexico, resulting in violations of human rights.
This chapter, drawing upon United Nations reports, examines the legal and environmental consequences of U.S. conduct by establishing a legal linkage between violations of U.S. environmental obligations and breaches of human rights.
1. The Paris Agreement
Within the legal framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere, the “Paris Agreement,” with objectives such as “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C,[27]” represents a turning point in the evolution of the climate legal regime. This is because, for the first time, it seeks to strike a balance between the universality of commitments and flexibility commensurate with the capacities and national circumstances of States. One of the key instruments for achieving this objective is the establishment of an enhanced transparency framework[28]. The Paris Agreement, as a global and flexible treaty regime, is based on nationally determined contributions (NDCs)[29].
2. The United States’ Non-Compliance with Key Environmental Treaties
The United States, as one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, witnessed, at the outset of President Donald Trump’s second term, one of the first and most prominent executive actions in the form of the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement—an action that challenged the multilateral cooperation regime and undermined the commitments undertaken under Articles (4) and (9).
Trump’s withdrawal from these provisions not only suspended national commitments[30] regarding greenhouse gas emission reductions[31] and adaptation[32] (26–28% by 2025), but also disregarded the responsibility for technology transfer (Article 9), thereby rendering the Global South more vulnerable to transboundary pollution. This ostensibly lawful withdrawal effectively neutralized the United States’ obligations as a developed (Annex I) country to (a) provide at least USD 100 billion annually by 2025 (from public and private sources) for mitigation and adaptation in Global South countries, (b) transparently report long-term financial goals by 2025, and (c) facilitate equitable access to clean technologies and capacity-building.
The temporary withdrawal of this country from the Paris Agreement (2017–2020), although formally lawful pursuant to Article (28) of the Paris Agreement, constituted, from the perspective of normative international law and human rights, a clear example of destructive unilateralism.
In its official response, the United Nations Secretariat described the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement as a “major disappointment” for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and characterized it as a threat to global security. This position indicates that even a lawful withdrawal from a treaty may, when conflicting with fundamental collective objectives, generate adverse effects beyond mere contractual relations. From the standpoint of international environmental law, the principal problem lies not in the withdrawal itself, but in its weakening effect on transboundary cooperation and the transfer of clean technologies. Countries of the Global South, which are structurally dependent on financing and technology from industrialized countries, are rendered more unequal as a result of this retreat and are effectively deprived of pathways toward low-carbon development.
This withdrawal went beyond the abandonment of a treaty, and its consequences may be summarized as follows:
● Undermining mutual trust among States in the enhanced transparency regime.
● Encouraging other major emitting States to suspend or weaken their own commitments.
● When a State with high economic and technological power withdraws from reporting obligations and expert review, other States will also have less incentive to provide accurate and verifiable data. This situation reduces transparency to a merely formal commitment. It is natural that in a regime based on voluntary commitments (NDCs) and peer pressure, such conduct directly empties the logic of transparency and accountability from within.
3. Human Rights Implications: From Ineffective Transparency to Transboundary Human Rights Violations
Incomplete or unreliable data directly undermine the ability to identify perpetrators of human rights violations resulting from climate change. U.S. unilateralism in this area is particularly open to criticism in three respects:
3-1. Violation of the Obligation of International Cooperation
Pursuant to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[33], States are obliged to cooperate individually and collectively for the progressive realization of fundamental rights; this obligation is not confined to domestic and territorial measures, but rather possesses a dual character. Ultimately, under this interpretation, international cooperation is not a political commitment but an integral component of States’ legal obligations. The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the weakening of the transparency framework constitute a failure to fulfill the obligation of international cooperation, particularly where such conduct has foreseeable and extensive effects on the rights of vulnerable groups in least developed and small island developing States.
3-2. Extraterritorial Responsibility for Climate Impacts
According to the advisory opinion of the Court[34], “in cases of transboundary harm, the exercise of jurisdiction by the State of origin is based on the understanding that the State in whose territory or under whose jurisdiction activities are carried out has effective control over those activities and is in a position to prevent the transboundary harm that affects the enjoyment of the human rights of individuals outside its territory. Potential victims of the adverse effects of such activities fall within the jurisdiction of the State of origin for the purposes of that State’s potential responsibility for failure to comply with its obligation to prevent transboundary harm.” If a state exercises effective control over activities that cause transboundary environmental harm, and such harm results in human rights violations, that State bears responsibility even if the victims are located outside its territory; this is particularly relevant where energy, industrial, and climate policies are entirely under the effective control of the federal government.
United Nations human rights bodies have increasingly recognized that greenhouse gas emissions, where foreseeability and effective control exist, may give rise to extraterritorial State responsibility; however, the weakening of transparency by the United States makes the establishment of causality more difficult while simultaneously constituting a breach of due diligence obligations[35], given that the State possesses the necessary scientific and technological tools for accurate monitoring and reporting.
3-3. Transboundary Pollution and Human Rights Violations
The no-harm principle is one of the fundamental customary principles of international environmental law, rooted in the arbitral award in the Trail Smelter case between the United States and Canada[36]. According to this principle, no State is permitted to use or exploit its territory in a manner that causes significant or serious harm to the environment or the legitimate interests of other States.
The International Law Commission, in its draft principles on the prevention of transboundary environmental harm and its 2021 supplementary report, has emphasized that States are obliged to control pollutant emissions and hazardous activities with foreseeable transboundary effects,[37] even in the absence of a specific treaty obligation; this requirement is grounded in customary obligations of no-harm and due diligence and is widely recognized in international legal doctrine as a binding principle.²
The United States’ non-compliance with the 1991 Air Quality Agreement (AQA),[38] aimed at controlling transboundary pollutant emissions -such as SO₂ and Nox- and improving air quality along the Canada–U.S. border, has resulted in uncontrolled pollutant emissions. Joint meteorological and environmental modeling[39] (a combined meteorological and chemical simulation that predicts the flow and dispersion of air pollutants at the regional/transboundary level) and scientific data demonstrate that emissions of pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone by the United States have direct and measurable impacts on public health in Canada and Mexico. Moreover, a significant proportion of premature mortality related to air pollution in Canada is attributable to emissions originating from U.S. territory. In other words, the United States is responsible for 20% of premature deaths and more than 50% of ozone-related deaths in Canada, leading to respiratory diseases, reduced agricultural yields in Windsor and Quebec, and approximately 80% of the environmental burden in certain areas falling upon vulnerable groups. Along the Mexican border, industrial pollution resulting from U.S. ports and transportation corridors has led to increased respiratory and infectious diseases in border communities. From a legal perspective, this situation constitutes a clear instance of foreseeable transboundary harm rooted in the prioritization of economic considerations over public health.
| Pollutant | U.S. Source | Impacts in Canada / Mexico | Human Rights Violations |
| ا Ozone | Industries, vehicles | Aproximately 2,000 annual deaths in Canada | Right to life / right to health |
| Sewage | border ports | Respiratory diseases in Mexico | Right to a healthy environment |
4. United Nations Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
In numerous reports, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have identified climate change and environmental pollution as direct threats to fundamental rights, including the right to life[40], the right to health[41], the right to food[42], and the right to a healthy environment[43].
The central point is that these bodies emphasize the need for State accountability and the provision of adequate remedies for human rights harms resulting from greenhouse gas emissions; an obligation that is not confined to territorial boundaries but has an extraterritorial dimension, such that States cannot invoke the principle of national sovereignty to evade responsibility for climate impacts beyond their borders. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in General Comment No. 26 (2023), explicitly stated that CO₂ emissions originating from the territory of a State may, where foreseeability, causality, and effective control are established, give rise to extraterritorial human rights responsibility, particularly with respect to children’s rights.
In this context, the United States’ failure to comply with soft-law instruments such as the OECD Council Recommendations on transboundary pollution constitutes evidence of a lack of good faith and a breach of the customary obligation of international cooperation[44]. Reports of the Human Rights Council also emphasize that such conduct exposes States to civil liability for extraterritorial human rights violations.
U.S. unilateralism has not only disrupted the balance of commitments embodied in the Paris regime, but has also exacerbated the unequal distribution of environmental risks a situation incompatible with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities[45] and climate justice, and one that necessitates a reconsideration of transboundary legal regimes.
From the perspective of the law of treaties, the United States’ failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol does not, in itself, give rise to contractual international responsibility; however, given that the United States signed the Protocol, pursuant to Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it was obliged, prior to a definitive declaration of intent not to become a party, to refrain from any acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. With respect to the Paris Agreement, withdrawal in accordance with Article (28) was formally lawful, but this does not exempt the United States from customary and human rights obligations arising from the transboundary effects of pollutant emissions. It appears that an exclusive focus on the “legality of withdrawal” constitutes a common analytical error. The core issue is responsibility arising from consequences, not merely treaty membership status; for in a world where climate change knows no borders, insistence on a narrow conception of sovereignty leads to the erosion of the legitimacy of the international legal order.
In a world where the climate crisis is inherently borderless, insistence on prioritizing short-term national interests and withdrawing from mechanisms of collective cooperation not only undermines international trust and solidarity, but also seriously challenges the legitimacy of an international legal order based on shared responsibility and effective protection of human rights. In light of this, the experience of U.S. unilateralism in climate governance serves less as an example of the exercise of legitimate sovereignty than as a clear warning regarding the legal and human consequences of disengagement from multilateralism in addressing contemporary global threats.
Within this framework, the United States cannot rely on formal withdrawal from treaties to absolve itself of accountability for the environmental and human impacts of its policies. The future of climate governance depends more than ever on the acceptance of the reality that climate justice is untenable without extraterritorial responsibility. The long-term consequences of U.S. inaction in financing climate measures will become increasingly evident in future sessions of the climate change convention. This compels us to follow the future trajectory of global climate governance with greater scrutiny, from the perspective of achieving global justice and ensuring the enjoyment of fundamental rights by all human beings.
Conclusion
An examination of the examples and practices related to the unilateral actions of the United States in the fields of international intervention, migration, and economic sanctions demonstrates that these actions do not merely constitute isolated violations of certain principles of international law, but have rather evolved into a fundamental challenge to the normative capacity and institutional coherence of this system. Principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, the right of peoples to self-determination, and obligations relating to human rights and the environment can fulfill their regulatory function only when they are implemented equally, non-selectively, and accompanied by effective accountability mechanisms.
At the same time, the responses of the international community, ranging from judgments of the International Court of Justice to General Assembly resolutions and reports of human rights bodies, indicate that despite serious difficulties in the practical enforcement of rules, international law has retained its normative authority and continues to be invoked as a benchmark for assessing the legitimacy of State conduct. This situation has created a persistent tension between the “reality of power” and the “legal norm,” a tension that profoundly influences the future trajectory of the international order.
From a human and social perspective, the consequences of unilateral policies, particularly in the field of migration and asylum, extend beyond the legal sphere and directly affect human security, the right to a dignified life, access to basic services, the dignity of migrants, and the bonds of social solidarity. This reality serves as a reminder that international law is not merely a mechanism for regulating relations among States, but an instrument for the protection of human beings and the safeguarding of global justice.
Accordingly, strengthening effective multilateralism, enhancing the role of international institutions in oversight and accountability, avoiding the politicization of security concepts, and linking legal rules to the real needs of human societies constitute essential prerequisites for restoring trust in the international legal order. Only within such a framework can one hope that this system will transcend the level of written rules and evolve into a living, just, and effective order; an order that not only prevents unlawful and unilateral actions, but also lays the groundwork for sustainable peace, international cooperation, and human development in the contemporary world.
What has been examined in this booklet demonstrates that migration and asylum are not merely social or security phenomena, but rather tests of the extent of States’ commitment to human rights, international obligations, and the fundamental principles of the global legal order. Restrictive and discriminatory policies, particularly in the United States, have not only subjected the lives of millions of migrants and asylum seekers to insecurity, poverty, and deprivation of fundamental rights, but have also undermined the credibility of peremptory norms and the principle of cooperation among States. The examination of this country’s political, military, and economic interventions, alongside its non-compliance with certain international environmental obligations, likewise reveals a meaningful gap between normative claims and practical performance; a gap whose transboundary consequences affect fundamental rights such as life, health, a healthy environment, human dignity, and the right to self-determination at the global level.
Ultimately, this booklet emphasizes that the survival and effectiveness of the international legal system depend upon the collective will of States, genuine respect for peremptory norms, the strengthening of accountability mechanisms, and the acceptance of responsibility for the transboundary effects of national decisions. In the absence of such an approach, international law will be reduced to a set of written rules devoid of effective guarantees of implementation. The United Nations Association of Iran hopes that this work may constitute, however modestly, a step toward raising awareness, fostering legal critique, and upholding human dignity and rights in an interconnected world.
[1] Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4), adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945.
[2] Charter of the United Nations, Article 51, adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945.
[3] UN General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, adopted 21 December 1965; UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted 24 October 1970.
[4] ICJ Reports 1986, Nicaragua v. United States.
[5] ICJ Reports 2003, Oil Platforms, Iran v. United States.
[6] Kofi Annan
[7] Statement of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 2004 (Iraq War).
[8] Manuel Noriega
[9] UN GA Debates 1989 (Panama).
[10] UN GA Resolutions on Cuba Embargo (annual since 1992).
[11] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, A/HRC/48/59 (2021); OHCHR Press Release, UN expert urges lifting of unilateral sanctions against Venezuela to protect human rights (2021).
[12] UN Human Rights Council Reports on Venezuela sanctions.
[13] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV).
[14] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted 1966, entered into force 1976; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), adopted 1966, entered into force 1976.
[15] International Organization for Migration, Glossary on Migration (IOM 2019) https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/migrants-refugees-or-displaced-persons accessed 13 December 2025.
[16] United Nations, ‘Migration’ (United Nations) https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/migration accessed 13 December 2025.
[17] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137, art 1.
[18] P W Dail, ‘Immigration and Migration in America: Social Impact and Social Response’ (1988) 26 International Migration 441 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12159550/ accessed 12 December 2025.
[19] Dara Lind, Trump Administration Responds to Tragedy By Putting Hundreds of Thousands of Legal Immigrants’ Lives on Hold (American Immigration Council, 4 December 2025).
[20] Max Matza and James FitzGerald, Trump says he does not want Somalis in US as
ICE plans Minnesota operation (British Broadcasting Corporation, 3 December 2025).
[21] US cancels citizenship ceremonies for migrants from travel ban countries (BBC News, 5 December 2025).
[22] N Noonan and B Romagnolo, ‘US Imposes Severe Immigration and Travel Restrictions on People From 19 Countries and Additional Nationalities’ (ArentFox Schiff, JD Supra, 5 December 2025).
[23] Nancy Noonan and Berin Romagnolo, US Imposes Severe Immigration and Travel Restrictions on People From 19 Countries and Additional Nationalities (JDSupra, 4 December 2025).
[24] Black Muslim Experiences (Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, 2025).
[25] Anti-immigration Policies and Fear of Deportation: A Human Rights Issue’ (School of Social Work, Arizona State University, 2016) accessed 13 December 2025.
[26] Aborode AT, Lawal L, Agwuna FO, Adewunmi RO, Ubechu SC and Badri R, Health disparities among illegal immigrants and homeless people in the USA: a struggle within (2023) International Journal of Surgery: Global Health 6(6).
[27] Art 2, paragraph b of the Paris Agreement (2015).
[28] Enhanced Transparency Framework, Art 13, paragraph b of the Paris Agreement (2015).
[29] Art 2, 4 and 13 of the Paris Agreement (2015).
[30] NDC
[31] mitigation
[32] Adaptation
[33] ICESCR, art. 2(1): Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
[34] Advisory Opinion 23 (n 7) para 95.
[35] due diligence
[36] Trail Smelter (1941-1938).
[37] Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, (2001).
[38] Air Quality Agreement (1991).
[39] GEM-MACH-MNR
[40] ICCPR, art 6.
[41] ICESCR, art 12.
[42] ICESCR, art 11.
[43] Report of the Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/RES/48/13 (2021).
[44] UNGA Res 76/300.
[45] CBDR-RC, Paris Agreement, art 2(2).
