Left unchecked, U.S. hegemony has the potential to threaten the shared sovereignty and equality of all nations under the law, as recognized by the United Nations Charter. Yet rather than decry illegal uses of force and hold firm to international principles that have served to protect international peace and security for more than half a century, the United Nations and its composite parts, particularly the Security Council and the International Court of Justice ("ICJ"), have repeatedly acquiesced to U.S. pressure. As a result, the international community has been endangered by the very real possibility that future uses of force will transcend manageable levels of control.

Therefore, it is useful to examine the role of the ICJ in the use of force cases, as well as to analyze the established international law on the use of force. By contrasting this law and U.S. policies, actions, and representations as they relate to the use of force, a deeper subtext in American discourse is exposed. Thereby, it becomes clear that both the policies and the actions that the United States present as valid uses of force, in fact, violate international law. In addition, this work strives to make visible an imperial ontology in the U.S. representation of “truth,” one which obviates the need to establish an empire by conquest and occupation and, combined with U.S. violations of international law, indicates a lack of legitimacy in the U.S. promulgation of freedom and democracy, exposing them not as "self-evident" truths, but as a means to an end. It is this lack of legitimacy that the United Nations, and in part the ICJ, must recognize to preserve the shared sovereignty of all nations.

The full text of this article is available in Volume 14, Issue 1, of the Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law.

All Rights Reserved © 05/01/2006