ADVERTISEMENT
In her view, the U.S. action represented more than a strategic strike; it signaled a dangerous erosion of sovereignty, self‑determination, and the rule of law.
She stressed that these institutions must not be mere forums for rhetoric but active guarantors of international norms and mediators in crisis situations.
Her remarks implicitly criticized what she and other critics described as the relative inaction or paralysis of the U.N. Security Council in response to the U.S. operation, an outcome that exposes deeper structural challenges within global governance.
ADVERTISEMENT