THE IMPACT OF GREAT POWER RIVALRY ON SECURITY OF MARGINALIZED STATES

Abstract

This study examines how great power rivalry, particularly among nuclear-armed states, undermines international legal protections for marginalized states. Through comparative case analysis of Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and Palestine, combined with semi-structured interviews of 25 international law experts, diplomats, and civil society actors, the research identifies systematic juridical asymmetry—the differential application of legal norms based on state power and strategic alignment. Findings reveal that nuclear weapon status functions as an impunity shield: nuclear-armed states violate international humanitarian law more frequently and face consequences less frequently than non-nuclear states. Sovereignty operates as contingent privilege rather than absolute right, with protections depending on alignment with great power interests rather than formal legal status. Three primary exploitation mechanisms emerge: selective treaty enforcement, rhetorical inversion (punishing transparency while rewarding opacity), and ally immunity. Despite these asymmetries, international law provides marginalized states with discursive resources for legitimation and coalition-building, though material protection requires diversification of partnerships rather than exclusive alignment. The study concludes that institutional paralysis within the UN Security Council, ICC, and IAEA enables continued violations, and recommends Security Council reform, expanded IAEA mandates, automatic accountability mechanisms, and renewed multilateral arms control negotiations involving all nine nuclear-armed states.