Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Dialektika kontemporer Pinisi Journal of Social Science
Eja, Alobo Eni
Unknown Affiliation
Social Sciences Other

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
The Trump Doctrine of Preemptive Extraterritorial Force: Targeted Killing Promises Against Nigerian Jihadists and the Crisis of International Legal Order Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Njong, Cleverty Afu; Agube, Ntamy
Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer Vol 13, No 2 (2025): Juli – December 2025
Publisher : dialektika kontemporer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The January 2026 public declaration by the U.S. President Donald Trump vowing to order lethal strikes against Islamic State-affiliated jihadist factions in Nigeria represents a critical inflection point in the normative architecture governing the use of force. This paper conducts an extensive doctrinal and policy analysis of such a declaration, situating it within the broader “Trump Doctrine” of unilateral, preemptive military action that challenges the United Nations Charter’s foundational framework. The paper posits that promises of extraterritorial force against non-state actors (NSAs) in the territory of a consenting but weak sovereign state like Nigeria create a complex tripartite legal nexus involving: the jus ad bellum limits of self-defense against NSAs (the “unwilling or unable” test), the jus in bello principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in a counterterrorism context, and the emerging jus ad vim debate on the law of armed conflict short of war. Through a case study of Nigeria’s counterinsurgency against ISWAP and Boko Haram, analyzing the state’s capacity, territorial control, and ambiguous consent” the paper interrogates whether such U.S. action would constitute lawful collective self-defense, a violation of sovereignty, or an unlawful intervention. It further examines the dangerous precedent set by public, politically instrumental declarations of force, which risk eroding diplomatic channels, undermining host-state legitimacy, and legitimizing a global practice of “adversarial airstrike diplomacy.” The paper concludes that while the 2001 AUMF provides a contested domestic U.S. legal basis, the international legal permissibility hinges on a fact-specific assessment of Nigeria’s effective control and explicit consent, a threshold currently unmet in large parts of the Lake Chad Basin. Ultimately, the declaration epitomizes a trend toward the normalization of unilateral counterterrorism strikes, posing a systemic threat to the Article 2(4) prohibition and accelerating the fragmentation of international law into a hierarchy where powerful states dictate the rules of cross-border violence. 
The Illicit Commodification of Deportation: The Trump Administration’s “Third-Country Prisoner Transfer” Policy as a Violation of Jus Cogens Norms and the Law of State Responsibility Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Ipuole, Roland; Njong, Cleverty Afu
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 4, No 2 (2025): September
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v4i2.51008

Abstract

This paper examines the Trump administration’s initiative to deport non-citizen prisoners to third countries through bilateral agreements as a fundamental challenge to international legal order. We argue this policy of “strategic exile” constituted an internationally wrongful act that engaged United States state responsibility by violating peremptory norms (jus cogens) and established principles of international law. The analysis demonstrates how the policy violated the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of nationality and the right to a nationality, breached the absolute principle of non-refoulement, and contravened customary rules governing lawful expulsion. By seeking to transfer individuals to states with which they lacked genuine legal bonds, the United States attempted to create conditions of de facto statelessness while exposing individuals to foreseeable risks of persecution and indefinite detention. The paper further examines how recipient states could bear shared responsibility under the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility for aiding in these violations. This case represents a dangerous precedent for the erosion of fundamental human rights protections through bilateral coercion, demanding a robust international response to affirm that state sovereignty cannot legitimate the unilateral severance of an individual’s legal bond to the international community of states.
Sinking States, Shifting Boundaries: Sea-Level Rise, Statehood and Maritime Entitlements After the ILC’s 2025 Final Report – Implications for Africa and Nigeria Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Udoaka, Edem Essien; Inyang, Gabriel Etim-Ben
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 4, No 3 (2026)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v4i3.70283

Abstract

The International Law Commission (ILC) concluded its landmark study on sea level rise in relation to international law at its seventy sixth session in 2025, adopting a final report that addresses three interconnected sub topics: the law of the sea, the continuity of statehood, and the protection of persons affected by sea level rise. This paper analyses the ILC’s final report and the subsequent clarifying advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued on 23 July 2025, which together represent the most authoritative statement to date on how international law should respond to the existential challenges posed by rising seas. The paper argues that while the ILC’s work and the ICJ’s opinion have moved the legal framework decisively towards baseline stability and a presumption of state continuity, critical doctrinal gaps remain – particularly regarding the normative status of the “presumption” of statehood and the practical implementation of fixed baselines in developing regions. Using Africa and Nigeria as a case study, the paper demonstrates that low lying coastal states and communities face not only physical submersion but a layered crisis of maritime entitlement erosion, internal displacement, and cross border resource conflict. The 2025 legal developments offer unprecedented support for preserving maritime zones and statehood, but translating these principles into enforceable rights requires urgent regional cooperation, legislative reform, and investment in coastal mapping and digital governance. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for African coastal states, with special attention to Nigeria’s Niger Delta, to operationalise the ILC’s findings and secure their maritime futures.
Co-Authors Agube, Ntamy Inyang, Gabriel Etim-Ben Ipuole, Roland Nabiebu, Miebaka Njong, Cleverty Afu Udoaka, Edem Essien