International law had its era, but for now it seems over

The 19th-century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham famously dismissed the idea of universal human rights as “Nonsense on stilts.” I fear his assessment remains accurate today, and I would extend that critique to the concept of international law as well. Before the outcry begins, let me clarify that I acknowledge this reality with regret, not advocacy. One reason I’ve strongly supported US hegemony and a unipolar world order is the belief that, even when Washington violated international law, it generally enforced it on others. I was willing to accept that an overarching power occasionally bending the rules while compelling others to abide by them was preferable to a multipolar world where numerous powers disregard the rules. The multipolar world that many anticipate risks becoming precisely that – a landscape of widespread rule-breaking, with Russia invading Ukraine, Iran violating non-proliferation agreements, the US exerting pressure on Panama and Greenland, and Israel launching attacks on Iran, among other examples.

Adherence to a law without an enforcer, as is the case with international law, hinges on two conditions. First, a state must be powerful enough to compel others to respect international law under threat of punishment, even if that state is, by definition, exempt from the law it enforces. Since no power can truly force such a state to comply, reliance rests on its goodwill and perhaps domestic pressures that favour international law. Otherwise, that state acts with near impunity. Second, international law must be structured so that adherence aligns with the national interests of participating states. For instance, if international law decreed – as it partially does – that no country has the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of another, sovereign states would have a self-interest in supporting and promoting such a law.

In his account of the Peloponnesian War nearly two and a half millennia ago, Thucydides presents a fictional dialogue between representatives of Athens and the island of Melos. The Melian Dialogue, as it is known, depicts a conference between an island seeking neutrality during the war (Melos) and a greater power offering either subjugation or destruction (Athens). While international law didn’t exist in Thucydides’ time, the Melians appealed to a higher authority in their attempt to persuade the Athenians. They argued that the gods would surely punish Athens for an unprovoked attack on a peaceful island. This argument failed to sway the Athenians, whose envoys asserted that in times of war, the powerful do what they can, while the weak endure what they must. Ultimately, all the male inhabitants of Melos were killed, and the women and children were enslaved. Athens later lost the Peloponnesian War to Sparta, perhaps a divine punishment, but it came too late for the people of Melos. This story illustrates the danger of relying on a higher power or moral obligation to uphold international law. How many Ukrainians were saved by international law? How many Jews? They faced their own Melian dialogues with their adversaries and survived only through the strength of their arms.

The fact that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin now complains about Israel’s violations of international law further demonstrates the concept’s obsolescence. Russia only discovers the importance of international law because its options for substantially supporting Iran are limited, and it hopes to sway public opinion. This is hypocritical from a country that invaded a neighbour in blatant violation of law, and, contrary to claims by Moscow apologists, there was no imminent threat from Ukraine towards Russia. Or, to put it differently, if Ukraine posed an existential threat to Russia, what about a country with a doomsday clock in its capital counting down the days until the hoped-for end of Israel? Iran has repeatedly announced its intentions to destroy Israel and, potentially, the United States. It is by definition a revolutionary regime seeking regional hegemony, and according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has a clandestine nuclear programme suitable for producing nuclear weapons.

The notion that Iran would adhere to international law once it acquires nuclear weapons is absurd. The very purpose of acquiring them would be to operate outside the constraints of international agreements. The same could be said of the US and Israel, and that would be accurate. However, their foreign policy goals primarily involve being left alone. Neither is a revolutionary, theocratic power aiming to overthrow the established order. Even Jordan and Saudi Arabia recognise this, which is why they tacitly accept Israel’s actions. International law had its era, but for now, it seems to be over.