Does International Law Still Matter?

Charli Carpenter uses David Foster Wallace's fish story to illustrate how international law, despite its essential nature, often goes unnoticed by those it governs.

She explains that international law functions like the 'water we swim in and the air we breathe,' underpinning critical global systems such as aviation safety and standardized communication through international treaties.

Victor Gao contends that individual nations' choices to disregard or even 'destroy' international law do not negate its existence; rather, they underscore the urgent need to preserve it.

He argues that such disregard, particularly by major powers, should act as a wake-up call, prompting a global effort to maintain and reinforce the international order against trends of disobedience.

For thinkers like Vattel and Grotius, sovereignty meant the right to make war, a concept Curtis Yarvin argues has been perverted by two centuries of evolution into current treaty-based systems.

He posits that the transition over the past two centuries has led to contemporary Anglo-American and post-Soviet interpretations of international law, which he views as a 'perversion' of original concepts from thinkers like Vattel and Grotius.

Yarvin suggests that the fundamental 'right of nations' as understood in classical models has been largely erased by the current treaty-based international system.

He acknowledges the system's inherent imperfections but emphasizes its success in achieving its core purpose of averting a global conflict, arguing that humanity is 'stuck' with this structure as the primary mechanism for maintaining global peace.

Balakrishnan Rajagopal identifies the 1955 Bandung Conference as a pivotal moment for formerly colonized nations, contrasting its significance with the 1945 post-World War II framework.

He highlights that the 1945 international legal framework was criticized for retaining 'colonial baggage,' failing to adequately address the needs and concerns of newly independent states.

Rajagopal underscores that international law is not a static set of rules but rather an arena of ongoing contestation, continually shaped by diverse global perspectives.

The long-term trajectory of international law, he asserts, involves a persistent effort to emancipate itself from its historical European roots and become a more universally representative system.

The Italian invasion of Ethiopia exposed the League's weakness, revealing it as a 'shell game' lacking effective enforcement mechanisms.

In contrast, the UN Charter was explicitly drafted with enforcement mechanisms to prevent similar failures and establish a more robust international security framework.

She highlights the 1977 update to the Geneva Conventions, where Global South nations successfully pushed for the codification of rules against targeting civilians, a norm not initially prioritized by major powers.

Carpenter's social science research, including survey experiments, suggests that treaties like the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons strengthen non-use norms among both the public and the military.

She notes that even without the adherence of nuclear powers, the mere existence of such laws elevates the threshold for what is considered unlawful, with public outcries over issues like collateral damage serving as 'natural experiments' in norm evolution.

Curtis Yarvin presents a cynical view, stating that the absence of nuclear war is entirely unrelated to the rules of the UN Charter or any international institutions.

He attributes global stability in the nuclear age solely to the 'natural law' of mutual assured destruction, rejecting the utility of all existing international frameworks.

Balakrishnan Rajagopal criticizes international law for its colonial origins, identifying key concepts as distinctly Anglo-American and Kantian, rather than universally indigenous.

He explains that Vattel's work introduced a 'standard of civilization' that historically excluded non-Western populations from equal legal protections, forming the basis of a two-tiered system.

Rajagopal argues that international law has contended for 150 years to shed this 'colonial baggage' and move towards genuine universality.

Historical data on U.S. military force deployment, particularly its disproportionate use against non-Western populations, is presented to illustrate the persistent impact of this colonial legacy.

Charli Carpenter questions the legitimacy of proposed 'shadow institutions' or panels, such as those aligned with figures like former President Trump.

She asserts that such initiatives, which she terms 'a panel of his friends,' lack the broad legitimacy and authority possessed by established frameworks like the UN Charter.

The discussion emphasizes that true institutional legitimacy arises from inclusive representation rather than purely political, hand-picked appointments.

Curtis Yarvin suggests that the Azeri-Armenian conflict reached a decisive conclusion precisely because of minimal international interference.

He contrasts this with situations like the UNRWA Gaza experience, which he describes as 'generational revanchism' prolonged by the current international order, which he views as a failed 1945 construct that obstructs rather than promotes peace.

She highlights that these laws, along with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have been signed by every nation, making them applicable to all and accepted as legitimate.

Carpenter asserts that these laws are meticulously designed to hold all actors accountable, irrespective of whether a conflict is perceived as just or unjust.

She concludes that imperfections within the international legal system do not justify abandoning these fundamental laws.

He argues that if laws are only selectively obeyed by powerful nations when convenient, they lose their universal application and thus their true character as 'law.'

Rajagopal asserts that the post-World War II international order is fundamentally flawed because it depends on the voluntary compliance of powerful nations, which is often not forthcoming.

He cites examples where efforts to hold powerful actors, such as Israel or Hamas, accountable for violations are met with immediate political retaliation, including sanctions against international courts, further highlighting the systemic double standards.

He describes the devastation as a 'vicious intention of destroying the Palestinians' and seizing their land, asserting that such atrocities should not be justified by power dynamics.

Gao expresses hope for a future two-state solution, emphasizing the need for human decency to prevail in resolving the conflict.

Victor Gao warns powerful nations against acting solely based on their current strength, reminding them that history demonstrates the eventual downfall of seemingly invincible powers.

He invokes the Confucian Golden Rule, stating, 'Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you,' advocating for this principle as a guide for international conduct.

Gao reinforces this by citing historical examples, such as the ultimate defeat of figures like Hitler and Japanese fascism, to underscore that justice, often described as having a 'long arm,' eventually prevails over unchecked power.

He concludes that the current generation faces a more profound burden than that of the 1940s, urging them to view these imperfections as a challenge to actively build and improve the international legal system.