Fact check: What are the consequences for a country that violates international law by attacking another sovereign nation without justification?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, countries that violate international law by attacking another sovereign nation without justification face several potential consequences, though enforcement remains inconsistent:

Legal Consequences:

• Such actions constitute the international crime of aggression, which is considered a supreme international crime under international law ^[1]
• UN experts have condemned such attacks as threatening human rights and undermining the international rule of law ^[2]
• The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or by decision of the UN Security Council ^[3]

Practical Consequences:

• Economic sanctions are a primary response, as demonstrated by the EU's extension of restrictive measures against Russia for its war of aggression against Ukraine ^[4]
• Diplomatic isolation and international condemnation from the global community ^[5]
• Calls for de-escalation and return to diplomacy from various nations ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant gaps in how international law is enforced and applied:

Selective Enforcement:

• The international community has never really addressed the 'crime of aggression', allowing impunity to reign ^[6]
• Countries often use past violations as justification for their own actions, creating a cycle of impunity ^[6]
• The United States has actively opposed the International Criminal Court (ICC) and imposed sanctions on ICC officials ^[7], demonstrating how powerful nations can resist accountability mechanisms

Historical Pattern of Violations:

• The UN Charter has been continually violated across the planet for eight decades ^[6]
• Member states rarely agree on key principles such as self-determination and the right to self-defense ^[6]
• Examples include Russia's war against Ukraine and the US invasion of Iraq ^[6]

Power Dynamics:

• Powerful nations benefit from maintaining a system where enforcement is selective and inconsistent
• Media coverage can sometimes celebrate international aggression rather than condemn it ^[1]
• The effectiveness of consequences often depends on the geopolitical position of the aggressor nation

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question assumes that there are consistent and meaningful consequences for violating international law, which the analyses suggest is misleading:

• The question implies a functioning system of international justice, when in reality impunity has been allowed to reign for decades ^[6]
• It doesn't acknowledge that consequences are often politically motivated and selectively applied based on the power and alliances of the aggressor nation
• The framing suggests that "justification" is objectively determinable, when in practice, nations often claim self-defense or other justifications that are disputed
• The question doesn't account for the fact that some of the world's most powerful nations, including permanent UN Security Council members, have themselves violated these principles while simultaneously being responsible for enforcing them

The analyses demonstrate that while international law exists on paper, its enforcement depends heavily on political will and power dynamics rather than consistent application of legal principles.