Trump Heralds End Of International Law

Isaiah Berlin, the philosopher and historian of ideas, once remarked that the best that humanity could hope for was compromise. A flexible and ambiguous compromise,“since out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”

The United Nations is based on a Charter whose only ambit, according to US President Harry Truman, was to be the essential organization to keep the peace post-World War II.

In contrast, the current order, largely based on a“coalition approach” to multilateralism, requires more flexibility or elasticity and a good amount of tolerance when great powers break the rules.

“Above all, not too much zeal!” Talleyrand's motto resonates again in an age where we are collectively expecting too much from international law, and at a moment where we tend to remember it only when we need it.

Like Heraclitus' River, international law depends more than ever on the changing balance of power between the“liberal West” and the“illiberal rest.”

If the objective is to restore faith in the international legal system, international law has first to integrate states initially excluded from rule-setting. The price to pay is that commitments may become more general compared to those from like-minded groups. But this inclusive approach is essential to mitigate potential conflicts arising from competing blocks.

Second, the international order is presently based on international rules that not all states consider akin to rules of international law. But these laws are not only a set of technical norms agreed to, but authoritative expressions of principles that define the objectives and course of collective action.

The fundamental principles of the UN Charter and other international standards already include respect for sovereignty, non-intervention and territorial integrity, as well as human rights, fundamental freedoms and an open international economic system.

Principles able to respond to global complex shocks are also being anchored in the international system, such as the principles of trust, equity and solidarity or, in connection with the environment and development, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Enduring international orders have usually relied on some basic consensus and principles of conduct among nations.

It is undeniable that these principles cannot offer automatic solutions to specific problems due to their conflicting implications. However, they can serve as criteria to be carefully weighed and balanced to arrive at rational solutions. Despite inherent tension between principles and immediate needs, they can be aligned to work in harmony.

Why is this so? Because principles are flexible in that they do not prescribe specific procedural patterns or detailed mechanisms for action. But they are necessary for the negotiating possibilities they open up and the constructive additions they offer in international attempts to resolve conflicts of interest.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

In allowing for adaptation, they are able to embody opposing tendencies. Even in a UN system replete with privileges and hierarchy, power differentials are moderated to promote a more predictable environment, enabling diverse actors to participate in decision-making and have a voice.

Thus, the principle of equality among states is always viewed within a framework that includes the responsibilities of major powers.

Working beneath the surface, those principles entertain a life of their own. Tolerating idiosyncrasies, they don't require maintenance, contrary to rules and norms which require“long-term thinking and acceptance of short-term costs.”

Obviously, considerations of principle and law, however rational or righteous, might not suffice to settle the international law problem currently being faced.

The Euclidian definition of the straight line may not always hold true. Such a line, as traced by the purposes and principles of the Charter, might at times cross other lines in the intricate pattern of international political action.

But, applied in a less fervent and more cautious way in individual cases, principles can influence the development of more frequent ad hoc arrangements and operational measures. Problems associated with political judgment will remain for those in charge of“saving a country.”

Eric Alter is a former UN servant and dean and professor of international law and diplomacy at the Diplomatic Academy in Abu Dhabi.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)