Conceived in the long shadow of global annihilation, the post-World War II order was constructed – imperfectly but purposefully – to protect humanity from a similar catastrophe.
In 1943, as the tides of World War II began to turn in favor of the Allies, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned: “A subsequent peace recognizes that the whole world is one neighbor, and unless justice is done to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain a constant threat to mankind.”
Today, that desired peace is more fragile.
The postwar architecture is now under intense pressure to avoid super-power conflict, institutionalize interstate cooperation, reduce hot wars, and secure human rights in binding international law. It faces a combustible mix of resurgent ultranationalism, zero-sum strategic rivalries and hegemonic power plays, the disintegration of long-standing alliances and brazen rejection of established norms.
Multilateral institutions that once underwrote stability are increasingly marginalized or instrumentalized for geopolitical ends. With foundational agreements hollowed out or outright violated, compliance regimes weakened and enforcement mechanisms rendered inert, the postwar international system is exposed to the coercive power politics it was designed to contain.
The result is a clear drift towards an unrecognized “force-based order” under which the principle of force and power eclipses can be displaced.
The Charter of the United Nations, one of the central documents of post-war infrastructure, is at stake. The Charter enshrines the fundamental rule of modern international order that no state may use the threat or use of force except in self-defense or with the authorization of the UN Security Council.
That peremptory norm – the foundation of the collective security architecture – is now visibly eroding. As raw power eclipses legal restraint and the silence or ambivalence of the many emboldens the few, prohibitions on the illegal use of force slip from binding law to empty rhetoric.
Almost overnight, the threat of force — and even unilateral military action undertaken without legal authorization or meaningful deliberation — began to crystallize into a disturbing new normal. This accelerated erosion of established standards is not a passing anomaly; This is a structural change with profound implications.
Institutions of international law, which have played a critical role in preventing conflict and promoting accountability, are also under threat.
The International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the UN, has successfully adjudicated numerous interstate disputes, demonstrating the power of legal procedures over hard power and military confrontation.
Efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account led to the International Criminal Court, from Nuremberg to the creation of UN ad hoc tribunals. Its creation in 2002 sent a strong message that, by other means alone, mass atrocities should no longer get a pass, that perpetrators must be held accountable and that impunity will no longer be tolerated.
The historical cultivation of these norms can be considered a crowning achievement because this normative transformation has not only awakened humanity’s awareness of atrocities but also reshaped expectations of accountability for such serious crimes and reshaped the very narrative and language with which we confront these important questions.
And yet, the powers that once shaped and nurtured these norms and institutions of international justice now erode their integrity – defiance, selective invocation or politicization. Thus, the edifice of collective restraint trembles, vulnerable to the machinations of those who value unbridled power over principle.
To be sure, such reluctance undermines the security and prosperity of all participants in the international system, regardless of their size or influence.
Another serious assault on the foundations of human rights advocacy lies in the “culture” of convenient anger and performative empathy by states and self-serving and ideologically inclined actors.
Such appropriate outrage and hollow sympathy destroy the credibility of the pursuit of justice, undermining the universality of dignity for which we strive.
International law cannot be invoked a la carte or enforced with discretion.
Indeed, perhaps the greatest danger to international justice is not outright opposition by ill-wishers but indifference and arbitrary application. Contrasting global responses to various theaters of conflict over the past decade reveal the hypocrisy that undermines faith in the universality and efficacy of international law.
When our compassion is contingent on political expediency or expediency, or dictated by the momentary spotlight of media attention or social media clickbait, we betray the basic, universal principle at the heart of human dignity.
Those who conveniently brand the language of human rights as “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” are questionable, but as a tool of legal strategy deployed against political opponents. Such deceptive tactics not only trivialize the suffering of victims, but can also encourage and perpetuate conditions that enable serious violations of human rights. Indeed, as the Bible warns us: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”
In this environment, small states and middle powers, in particular, cannot afford to be passive. They must be reconciled with strategic clarity and act with a real and principled commitment to international law and a determination to protect and strengthen the rules-based global system anchored in the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Perspective is important. The Western world, even considered as a whole, comprises about 11 to 15 percent of the global population. The remaining 85 to 89 percent of humanity lives beyond it.
In a century increasingly defined by multipolarity, the so-called Global North and Global South’s convergent interests in maintaining peace and stability — and a hope beyond — must rise above the complacency and double standards that have long written into the status quo in their spheres of influence.
True advocacy requires courage—to uphold and apply the law equally and impartially, even when doing so is unpleasant, unpopular, or personally costly. It is a discipline that protects rights not only when they align with powerful interests or with “tribal” and prevailing sentiments, but wherever justice demands it.
The legitimacy and competence of international justice is fundamentally grounded in moral leadership and unwavering loyalty to principle. Supervisors of international organizations, courts and tribunals must embody integrity, impartiality and steadfast dedication to their mandates.
When these moral foundations are shaken or compromised, the consequences are profound and lasting: public trust is shattered, victims experience new injustices, opponents are emboldened, and the quest for justice is dealt a blow. The character and courage of those at the helm are not merely virtues, but the cornerstone on which the entire edifice of international justice stands.
This is our clear call: should we allow the foundations of international law to be eroded by selective justice, passive indifference or the cynical calculus of unprincipled politics – the world will once again slide into the shadows of anarchy and chaos.
We cannot yield to a world order defined by unchecked aggression, the erosion of sovereign borders under predation and the unraveling of hard-won international norms. To acquiesce to such degradation is to legitimize disorder as a governing principle, invite instability, normalize coercion, and accelerate the descent into systemic violence.
Societies worldwide bear the cost in shattered security, broken institutions and immeasurable human suffering.
It is the responsibility of all of us to prevent this backsliding.
By firmly upholding international law, nations around the world do more than protect their futures; They build barriers against the reckless impulses of the aggressor, protecting everyone—including the aggressor—from the dire consequences of uncontrolled conflict.
Indifference is not an option. Willful blindness is complicated.
In standing firm in defense of international law, we are not merely enforcing norms. We are shaping the trajectory of our civilization and honoring humanity’s enduring promise.
The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet triumphs, a beacon for our gradual rise from unbridled brute force toward greater order, justice, and civilization.
We must never allow the law to remain silent, as it stands as the foremost protector of humanity.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
(tags to translate) Views
