Conceived in the long shadow of global devastation, the post-World War II order was built, imperfectly but purposefully, to protect humanity from similar catastrophes.
In 1943, as the tide of World War II began to tilt in favor of the Allies, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned, “Unless there is a peace that recognizes the whole world as one neighborhood and brings justice to all humanity, the germs of World War II will remain a constant threat to humanity.”
Today, that much-needed peace is increasingly fragile.
Postwar structures conceived to avoid great power conflict, institutionalize cooperation between states, reduce hot wars, and entrench human rights within the bounds of binding international law are now under severe pressure. The country faces an incendiary mixture of resurgent ultranationalism, hyper-intensified zero-sum strategic competition and hegemonic power plays, fragmentation of long-standing alliances and brazen rejection of established norms.
Multilateral institutions, once responsible for stability, are increasingly marginalized and co-opted for geopolitical ends. Fundamental treaties are hollowed out or completely broken, compliance regimes are weakened, enforcement mechanisms are rendered ineffective, and the postwar international system remains exposed to the very coercive power politics it was designed to contain.
The result is a clear trend toward an unchecked “power-based order,” under which rights are lost and power can overshadow principles.
The United Nations Charter, one of the central documents of postwar infrastructure, is under threat. The Charter enshrines the bedrock rule of the modern international order that no state may threaten or use force except in cases of self-defense or with the authorization of the United Nations Security Council.
The coercive norms that are the basis of the collective security architecture are now visibly fraying. As naked power overshadows legal restraint, and the silence or ambiguity of the many emboldens the few, the prohibition on unlawful use of force risks falling from binding law to empty rhetoric.
Almost overnight, threats of force, and even unilateral military actions taken without legal authorization or meaningful deliberation, began to form a disturbing new normal. This accelerating erosion of established norms is not a temporary anomaly. It is a structural change with significant implications.
The institutions of international law that have played a crucial role in preventing conflict and determining accountability are also under threat.
The United Nations’ highest judicial body, the International Court of Justice, has successfully adjudicated numerous disputes between states, demonstrating the power of legal mechanisms against hard power and military confrontation.
From Nuremberg to the creation of the United Nations Special Tribunal, efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account paved the way for the International Criminal Court. Established in 2002, it sent a strong message that mass atrocities by other means could no longer be tolerated as mere politics, that perpetrators must be held accountable, and that impunity could no longer be tolerated.
The historical cultivation of these norms may be seen as a crowning achievement, as this transformation of norms not only awakened humanity’s awareness of atrocities, but also reshaped expectations of accountability for such grave crimes, reshaping the very narratives and language in which we confront these important issues.
But the very powers that once shaped and nurtured these norms and institutions of international justice are now eroding their integrity through rebellion, selective invocation, or politicization. In this way, the edifice of collective restraint trembles and becomes vulnerable to the machinations of those who value unlimited power over principle.
Indeed, such setbacks undermine the security and prosperity of all participants in the international system, regardless of their size or influence.
Another serious attack on the very foundations of human rights protection lies in the deep-rooted “culture” of expedient resentment and performative sympathy by states and self-interested, ideologically inclined actors.
This convenient anger and empty sympathy undermines the credibility of the pursuit of justice and undermines the universality of dignity to which we aspire.
International law cannot be invoked à la carte or selectively enforced.
Indeed, perhaps the greatest threat to international justice is not just outright opposition by people with bad intentions, but indifference and arbitrary application. The contrasting global responses to various conflict zones over the past decade alone reveal hypocrisy that undermines confidence in the universality and effectiveness of international law.
When our compassion is dictated by political expediency and expediency, or by the ephemeral spotlight of media attention or social media clickbait, we betray fundamental, universal principles at the heart of human dignity.
Equally suspicious are those who conveniently brandish the term human rights not as “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family,” but as a tactical tool of law to be deployed against political opponents. Such deceptive tactics not only trivialize the suffering of victims, but can also fuel and perpetuate the very conditions that enable even more serious human rights violations. 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 medium powers in particular cannot afford to be passive. States must act with clear strategic alignment and determination to protect and strengthen the rules-based global system, which is rooted in international law and a pragmatic and principled commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Perspective matters. Western countries, taken together, account for approximately 11 to 15 percent of the world’s population. The remaining 85 to 89 percent of humanity lives beyond.
In a century increasingly characterized by multipolarity, the common interests of the so-called Global North and Global South in safeguarding the desired peace and stability within and beyond their respective spheres of influence must rise above the complacency and double standards that have long maintained the status quo.
True advocacy requires courage. It means upholding and applying the law equally and impartially, even when it is unpleasant, unpopular, or personally costly. It is a discipline for defending rights, not just when they coincide with powerful interests or “tribal” or popular sentiments, but wherever justice demands it.
The legitimacy and efficacy of international justice also rests fundamentally on ethical leadership and unwavering fidelity to principles. Administrators of international organizations, courts and tribunals have a duty to exemplify integrity, impartiality and unwavering dedication to their duties.
When these ethical foundations are challenged or violated, the effects are deep and long-lasting. Public trust is destroyed, victims suffer new injustices, adversaries are emboldened, and the pursuit of justice suffers. The character and courage of those at the helm are not just virtues, they are the cornerstones upon which international justice rests.
This is our clarion call. If we allow the foundations of international law to be eroded by selective justice, passive indifference, or the cynical calculations of unprincipled politics, the world will once again fall into the shadow of anarchy and chaos.
We cannot succumb to a world order defined by unrestrained aggression, the erosion of sovereign borders through pillage, and the erosion of hard-won international norms. Tolerating this decline legitimizes anarchy as a governing principle, invites instability, normalizes coercion, and accelerates the slide into organized violence.
The cost will be borne by societies around the world in broken security, broken institutions, and untold human suffering.
It is our shared responsibility to avoid this setback.
By strictly adhering to international law, countries around the world not only protect their future; They erect barriers against the reckless impulses of would-be invaders and protect everyone, including the invaders themselves, from the dire consequences of unfettered conflict.
Indifference is not an option. Willful blindness is complicity.
In staunchly defending international law, we do more than just enforce norms. We also shape the trajectory of civilization and honor the enduring promise of humanity itself.
The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet victories, a beacon that guides our gradual rise from unbridled violence to greater order, justice, and civilization.
The law is humanity’s greatest defender, so we must never allow it to remain silent.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
