A group of United Nations human rights experts has issued a sharp warning to the United States, calling on Washington to urgently review its use of lethal force at home, abroad and at sea, and to bring its foreign policy rhetoric back in line with international law. The intervention adds to growing scrutiny of U.S. military power and diplomatic posture at a moment of heightened global tension.
A call from Geneva on the right to life
In a statement released in January 2026 by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the experts stressed that the right to life is non-derogable under international human rights and humanitarian law. They urged the United States to reassess practices that, in their view, risk undermining this principle across multiple theatres — from domestic law enforcement and maritime operations to overseas military actions.
“The United States must respect right to life and urgently review lethal-force practices at sea, abroad and at home,” the experts said, framing the issue as one that cuts across borders and legal regimes.
Greenland rhetoric draws particular alarm
The UN experts pointed in particular to recent U.S. statements suggesting potential control over Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Such comments, they warned, echo “colonial domination” and run counter to norms that the international community has spent decades building.
“Assertions suggesting that a territory can be taken, controlled or ‘owned’ by another State in pursuit of perceived national security or economic interests evoke a logic of colonial domination that the international community has long rejected,” the statement said.
Greenland’s population, recognised as a distinct Indigenous people, holds the right to self-determination under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States ratified in 1992. Any threat to alter Greenland’s political status by force would, the experts noted, violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states.
“Any threat or use of force to alter the political status of Greenland or to challenge the sovereignty of another State is clearly prohibited by the Charter,” they added.
From diplomacy to force: broader concerns
The Greenland issue sits within a wider critique of U.S. conduct. The experts cited military aggression against sovereign states, alleged extrajudicial killings, and the use of economic and diplomatic coercion — including sanctions and trade measures — as strategies that can directly or indirectly threaten human life.
They singled out U.S. measures against Venezuela, arguing that coercive actions targeting a civilian population violate both international and humanitarian law. “All of these measures are contrary to international and humanitarian law, including the non-derogable right to life,” the experts said.
The legal compass of the UN Charter
Underlying the critique is a reaffirmation of the UN Charter as the backbone of the international system. Article 2(3) obliges states to settle disputes peacefully, while Article 2(4) draws a bright line against force. Together, the experts argue, these provisions are being strained by power politics and ambiguous rhetoric.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, addressing the General Assembly on 15 January 2026, underscored the same message. “The Charter gives us our compass. Our pursuit for peace with justice gives us our purpose. And our common humanity gives us the imperative to act,” he said, setting the tone for UN priorities this year.
Why it matters beyond Washington
While the warning is directed at the United States, its implications are global. For small states like Malta, which relies heavily on international law to protect sovereignty and maintain stable sea lanes, adherence to the UN Charter is not an abstraction but a practical safeguard.
Malta’s strategic position in the Mediterranean — a crossroads for shipping, migration and military movements — means that norms governing the use of force at sea carry particular weight. Any erosion of these rules risks setting precedents that could reverberate through maritime zones far from U.S. shores.
A test of credibility
The UN experts’ statement does not prescribe specific policies, but it sets out a clear test: whether the world’s most powerful state is willing to bind itself to the same rules it helped design. Without that restraint, they warn, the right to life risks becoming conditional — protected in principle, but vulnerable in practice.
As global tensions sharpen, the experts’ message is a reminder that international law functions much like a lighthouse: its value lies not in times of calm, but when seas turn rough and the temptation to steer by raw power grows strongest.
