"Humanitarian Intervention Dilemma: Navigating the Complexities of International Law, Sovereignty, and Global Politics in Nigeria's Context"


By Chikwado Umeh Henry


The concept of humanitarian intervention in international law and ethics suggests that military action against a sovereign state can be justified to prevent or stop severe human rights abuses, such as genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. This idea is rooted in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the UN in 2005, which holds that state sovereignty is conditional on protecting its population from mass atrocities. If a government fails to do so, the international community has a responsibility to intervene, potentially with force.


Recent statements by President Trump regarding potential intervention in Nigeria appear to invoke humanitarian grounds, citing ongoing violence against Christians as an "existential threat" and a "Christian genocide." However, this approach is not without controversy. While some advocacy groups and media outlets describe the violence as genocide, human rights organisations have documented severe intercommunal clashes and killings affecting multiple groups, but stop short of classifying it as genocide.


Trump's approach echoes his previous emphasis on global Christian persecution but escalates to explicit military threats, potentially testing the boundaries of unilateral humanitarian intervention without broad international consensus or UN Security Council approval. If pursued, it could set a precedent for using humanitarian justifications in U.S. foreign policy, but risks violating Nigerian sovereignty and escalating regional instability.


President Bola Tinubu should be very tactful in handling this issue; this is not the time for media innocuousness. Seasoned diplomats should be at the centre of the matter, with thoughtful diplomatic engagements, and the issues will be resolved.


May Nigeria succeed.