🔗 Share this article

The year 1945 marked a critical point in international law, aligning with the establishment of the global organization and the International Military Tribunal to examine war crimes committed during the Second World War. Eight decades later, many argue that we are experiencing a time of major shifts, heading for a world devoid of such norms.

Current Discussions on the International Legal System

Earlier this year, a prominent economic journal released an commentary called “A World Without Rules.” This view was based on two events: regarding a bombing on a building sheltering leaders in the Gulf state, and additionally the entry of aerial vehicles into a European nation's airspace. The source stated that these moves ignore the established “rules-based order” and are leading to “a kind of anarchy and a spread of conflict.”

Several experts have adopted a more accepting outlook. Last year, a history professor discussed the “rules-based system” and challenged the attitude of advocates who defend its continuing role, labeling it as “sentimental.” He wrote that “raw power is being demonstrated everywhere we look,” and that international players are intentionally breaking the rules of the global system established after WWII. He cited an example of military action as proof.

Previous Context on Worldwide Norms

This represents certainly a perspective. But, can we say that “raw power is being used everywhere”? I question. To begin with, there is no novelty about “raw power.” Challenges to international rules have been largely ongoing since 1945. Well before modern events, there were numerous instances of manifest lawlessness, including interventions in several nations across different continents.

Are we witnessing the death of worldwide legal norms?

There is undoubtedly widespread violations today, especially in relation to specific norms of international law. Considering current conflicts in various parts of the world, it is challenging to contest with experts who assert that the defense of ordinary people under international humanitarian law is being “diminished to the point of risking to lose all significance.” Yet, the truth that some rules are being broken does not mean that they cease to exist. The rules set forth in the global agreements and their amendments on the welfare of innocent people in hostilities have not stopped to have force in the face of assaults in various conflict zones.

The Persistent Importance of Global Norms

And while specific regulations are undoubtedly being violated, and severely, the overwhelming bulk of global rules continues to be honored and to operate in a way that is fully effective. My rail travel from a British city to Paris and back was enabled by the operation of a host of worldwide accords. Likewise the conversations people make on smartphones, the foods people buy, and the medications we use. Each part of everyday existence is informed by the authority of global regulations. It works in the background – invisible, quietly, smoothly, successfully.

Within a post-rules world, you would anticipate global treaty negotiations to have ceased. This is not the case. Lately, states have consented to draft a fresh global agreement on the stopping and prosecution of crimes against humanity, and they approved a recent pact to establish the first worldwide judicial body on the crime of aggression since Nuremberg, in concerning a specific state's unlawful invasion.

In a post-rules world, you might also anticipate worldwide tribunals to be in a process of disintegration. It is true, a handful of tribunals have ended their operations or dissolved, and certain nations are leaving specific tribunals, but the instances are rare.

The Resilience of Global Institutions

Many of the other legal institutions are busier than ever. The International Court of Justice currently has 23 disputes on its agenda, which is greater than at any point in living memory. The tribunal's non-binding guidance mechanism has drawn unprecedented involvement in lately – dozens of countries were involved in one set of advisory opinion proceedings that culminated in a judgment that a certain action was illegal. And, recently, a vast number of nations engaged in another advisory opinion on climate change. That constitutes the highest level of involvement in any case in the annals of the tribunal.

I recognize the challenge to parts of international law that is under way from various sources. As a commentator expresses it, the new populist class of political predators and online influencers has declared war not just at jurists, but at their standards and institutions, their tribunals and their legal authorities, the postwar dedication to norms on economic exchange, on the entitlements of people and communities, and on the armed intervention. If their efforts succeed, he writes, “it will not only be the factions of jurists and technocrats that will be eliminated, but also free societies as we have understood it up to now.”

Ongoing Difficulties and Prospective Outlook

It might appear appealing today to reject the 1945 settlement. As one leader has illustrated, a little bravado can permit you to boycott worldwide ecological conferences, or to initiate a approach of targeting accused lawbreakers in the high seas. Yet these are not actions that will be {sustainable|vi