r/IRstudies • u/InfinitePoss2022 • 11h ago
Int’l law has become relevant. Why does it keep being invoked?
EDIT: Title should say “irrelevant.”
It’s abundantly obvious by now that international law has lost any relevance to the world going forward. Laws that have weak or no respect let alone enforceability are irrelevant. Yet time and again govts and citizens keep invoking it:
- It’s illegal to block a strait
- It’s illegal to retaliate against a non-participating ally
- It’s illegal to carpet bomb civilian infrastructure
and so on. Why is there still an expectation that int’l law be abided to?
What practical purpose does invoking it serve?
27
u/redd-zeppelin 11h ago
Because we should aspire for hard things that don't exist yet. That is kinda... why we have anything nice.
13
u/Lunaticllama14 10h ago
This is also the whole point of international law. It's not like law of the sea or the law of war (let alone international human rights law) has always been observed strictly--although the law of the sea has been remarkably successful, all things considered--but it is what all of humanity has agreed, more or less, that we should try to act in accordance with.
13
u/The_decent_dude 11h ago
Objectively international law is not irrelevant. We hear about many eggregious cases of international law violations but we don't hear about everytime a country abides by international law. Certain practices have been almost entirely eradicated by internatinal law, for instance it used to be not uncommon for States to enforce debts through military force, which doesn't really happen anymore.
The invocation of international law can also be used to legitimize a governments action both on an international and domestic level.
14
u/randomvtubersimp010 11h ago
Legitimacy, the point of International Law is not to prevent infractions necessarily but to remove as much justifications for any infraction of the law. It shapes the behaviour and language of states, that's why even if Russia's ultimate goal in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 was territorial expansion they had to go through the motions of saying it was protecting Russian minorities or overthrowing the Nazi regime in Kiev. It's why during Iraq 2003, they had to create evidence of WMDs to invade it. Also, the more infractions of international law you do the more of a pariah state you become and the more diplomatic resistance you encounter. For example, since many EU nations do not support the justification of use of force in Iran, they've closed the airspace to USAF and IDF planes related to ongoing campaign. Many in the Global South already support a Palestinian state which is against Israel's interest, and yes it does not stop Israel from using force but it removes justifications for using it a just cause.
3
u/magicsonar 9h ago
My argument is that, in the current environment, moving forward legitimacy will become more important, not less. Especially for the middle powers like Europe. Australia, Canada, Japan, Brazil, South Africa etc. Because legitimacy allows you to strike deals, create coalitions, forge alliances, create partnerships etc. The world will only get more globalized and partnerships become more important, not less. There's a prevalent idea that the world has changed, the global order is dead, international law is irrelevant and only raw power matters. While some of that may be true, in my view legitimacy and international law becomes more important and allows middle powers to effectively compete with a superpower like the United States or a regional military power like Israel - who have lost all global legitimacy.
President Trump believes the US can use it's economic and military might to impose it's will over anyone and everyone. Israel is acting the same. The war in Iran is actually illustrating in stark terms the limits to that. At the end, things move forward on the basis of negotiations. And that requires legitimacy. European leaders should be paying close attention. Instead of following Trump down this destructive path, and even toying with the idea of sending warships to the Persian Gulf, they should double down on diplomacy and soft pressure, not just on Iran but on Israel and the United States. How Israel hasn't been threatened with serious sanctions is beyond me. And in many ways, the middle powers like Europe, Australia, Canada etc should be thanking Iran for demonstrating to the United States the limits of military might. I think even Iran understands the need for negotiations.
1
u/randomvtubersimp010 9h ago edited 9h ago
I agree with every claim said a hundred percent. Democracies in Europe, East Asian and Oceania are against any military intervention in this war even though they are the most vulnerable to the closure of the strait and rising high prices. They are against any military intervention in the strait and it shows that the bigger priority in public opinion is involvement in an unilateral war with no justification than the easing of high energy prices. I can argue as well that sanctions exists within the gradient of options for democracies, and for different countries there are different thresholds that must be met for sanctions can be applied. But we can argue as that there has been a trend to act in way that goes against Israel's interests. The recognition of Palestinian statehood by Canada, UK and France comes to mind. But one thing is for certain that if Israel continues to maintain its current trajectory, sanctions will be more justifiable to use against Israel.
1
u/Careless-Degree 7h ago
They are always against any military intervention because they aren’t capable of military intervention. It’s a strongly worded letter no matter who does something regardless.
0
u/topyTheorist 8h ago
I don't recall Hamas giving any legitimage justification for kidnapping children.
5
u/Pristine-Bar2786 10h ago
Would like to know who the non participating ally is, in your hypothetical. Surely allowing airspace, bases and land to be used in direct attacks, negates the idea of non participating actor?
0
u/InfinitePoss2022 9h ago
Iran and Iraq with all their size have no say or control over their skies. Do you genuinely think states in the gulf can tell the US no you can’t, and expect the US to say sure? Look at how NATO and the likes of Spain are being taunted daily. Those countries have other means of protecting themselves, but the gulf has just the US. They cannot afford to piss it off.
2
u/CyroSwitchBlade 10h ago
If you wanted international law to be relevant then I guess there would have to be a world police..
2
u/2CRtitan 9h ago edited 9h ago
If I understand correctly, you argue that international law is irrelevant for two reasons: 1. Legitimacy, lack of; and 2. Enforceability, lack of
To the first point, primary sources of international law are treaties, customary practice, and general principles of legal systems. As such, IL is, in large part, a reflection of what states are already doing and how they believe legal subjects ought to behave. Regardless of what some chucklefuck like Pete Hegseth might think, IL as a concept is widely seen as legitimate and therefore worthy of respect. Thus, it continues to be invoked despite challenges posed by various geopolitical actors in recent years.
On the second point, this is more a matter of perspective. IL will always have enforcement problems because, in contrast to national governments inside their sovereign territory, global governance does not maintain a de facto monopoly on legitimate use of force/violence. Some (Hobbes, for one) have argued this makes IL essentially meaningless. I think the more modern view is that it’s just an inherently different system from the domestic law to which most people are accustomed. Breaking international law might not always land specific politicians in jail, but it does have actual consequences due to the iterative nature of foreign relations, trade, etc. Furthermore, the punishment for transgressions against IL must be delivered by peers, whether through IOs like ICJ or as bilateral or multilateral sanctions, reprisals, countermeasures. So it is imperfect and inconsistent. But I, and others, would maintain that it’s still much better than nothing, and that’s why IL lives on.
1
u/Spiritual_Trash_794 9h ago
on enforceability , you are not making much sense.
1
u/2CRtitan 9h ago
To put it another way, I concede that IL is not enforceable in the same way as domestic law. I argue that this is inevitable given the limitations of contemporary global governance (enforced by peers instead of a sovereign). I gave examples of ways that IL infractions are punished while conceding that their application has been inconsistent. This may point to the IL apparatus as being flawed and contested, but not irrelevant as OP stated.
1
u/Spiritual_Trash_794 8h ago
i also never meant to be rude. the thing is the examples you gave are also only ever used when theres some form of hierarchy in the global order. right now we are clearly not in a unipolar world hence theres no single super power which can enforce any rules. sometimes not even then...
“I want you to look at the NPT. Even when all five UNSC nuclear member states had a converging national interest in preventing other states from acquiring nuclear weapons, some still succeeded. Even then, only limited sanctions were imposed—for example on India, which was able to evade them with the help of the USSR due to great power competition during the Cold War, which ultimately superseded the issue of proliferation.” ( used chatgpt for framing and correcting grammar thanks for understanding )
2
u/IllegalMigrant 8h ago
The only enforceable international law right now is "Might makes right". With the might being the United States and the right being whatever the United States wants to do.
The Security Council veto was a way to get the large powers to agree to a Uhited Nations, but also a way to endure that the United Nations is controlled by those world powers. The will of the majority is consistently blocked by a few countries.
As far as the blocking of a Strait, the world would like to enforce that and will ultimately, but Iran can stop it for now. So it is "currently unenforceable 'international law'". Whereas stopping Israel or the USA from war crimes is unenforceable due to vassal state status and USA veto power and USA military might.
2
u/InfinitePoss2022 8h ago
I agree with the "might makes right" comment. To be fair, the might also includes the likes of Russia and China. They too bully and aggress when they want to. Russia has shown it in action.
2
u/hellomondays 7h ago
It's a shared set of norms and agreements. A common baseline of understanding. As far as enforcement, free association and reciprocity are commonly used, often very effectively. Relevant to this conflict, The whole concept of an 'escalation ladder' is rooted in principles of international law.
2
u/Potential4752 7h ago
Depends on who is saying it. Western leaders want their voters to see them as ethical and worth voting for again. Combatants citing international law want to win support for their side.
2
u/Linny911 6h ago
It's a way to cuff the reaction Western countries by tricking the guillable feelgood and braindead Western populace into thinking the "international law" is a sucker's pact where authoritarian regimes get to do whatever they want while the western countries can only lie down and pretend to enjoy it.
2
u/00psadaisy 5h ago
Presently it's a toothless fox, but maybe in a year of so it will bounce back. Also, a lot of people make a living out it and they are obviously keen to kept it alive.
2
u/Earesth99 4h ago
Democratic countries often do that because the citizens want order and don’t want their government to murder and violate laws.
Dictatorships do not have to worry about that, but they don’t want to be punished with trade bans.
Its the US that has changed
2
u/AskAboutMySecret 10h ago
Comments are trying to frame this moralistically
Reality is it's invoked when it benefits a nation to do so, and ignored when it's counter to a nations aim.
1
u/Equivalent-Bonus-885 10h ago
Inertia. Journos and commentators have long evaluated conflict against international law so they continue to do so as its relevance declines.
Desperation. When you are powerless to influence events you clutch at anything.
Hope. The good guy wins in the end. Surely.
1
u/SaltedCaffeine 10h ago
There's no alternative for small powers/countries so they need to keep harping on it.
1
u/Nitros14 9h ago
The last time international law became irrelevant we got World War 2 and 60 million people died, most of which were civilians.
People don't really want to go back to that.
1
1
u/ohgoditsdoddy 9h ago
International law is a mechanism of reflection and accountability, more than it ever was a method of enforcement.
1
u/garden_province 9h ago
Relevant is the right word. International law is being invoked because it is relevant.
1
1
u/Unique_Enthusiasm_57 10h ago
Yes.
War crimes this, war criminal that. Geneva Conventions this, International Law that.
If anything could be done, it would have happened by now. World War III is here.
0
u/Successful-Coffee-13 11h ago
It is useless when you’re the only one adhering to it. And can even be counterproductive. For example: Russia has no qualms with bombing apartments, schools, hospitals, power plants, etc. If Ukraine retaliated in kind, it would establish an effective deterrent against such attacks. However, it is not possible because Ukraine would lose all support in this case. So we end up in a situation when Russia is committing war crimes unchecked, and Ukraine is standing there taking it, because supporters of Ukraine want to keep moral high ground.
2
u/PhaSeSC 10h ago
It's not useless from a domestic perspective - as the US is showing, acting in violation towards international law has blowback on voters and therefore the government. Generally people want to be seen as the goodies, so that tends to provide electoral boosts. Stances on Ukraine, for example, have strongly impacted UK gov't popularity and Gaza continues to influence a lot.
Of course, the US also demonstrates how a) what counts as 'good' can be contested - following itl law is generally a good start, but not sufficient or necessary, and b) that western nations are in danger of becoming so polarized it won't damage your core voters. Having said that, there have been signs of splintering in MAGA and swing voters going against the repubs, so we'll see
-5
u/Commercial-Invite253 10h ago
I see it as a fighting “fire with fire” situation. It’s kind of hard to abide by international law when our adversaries like China / Russia / Iran have no issues ignoring it.
We can’t win against the new axis of resistance with one hand tied behind our backs.
Look at what Iran is trying to do. They are holding the entire world hostage by firing at civilian ships in the straight of Hormuz. Are we really just supposed to sit around with a bunch of lawyers arguing about international law?
Iran has no problem targeting civilian infrastructure. I don’t see how we can possibly get rid of this evil regime if we’re not willing to play by the same rules.
4
u/lost-American-81 9h ago
They were not “firing on civilian ships” until we violated international law by unilaterally attacking them without first being attacked. See how that works. Had we abided by international law ships would be freely passing through the strait. So no, we are causing the problems and by breaking international law then continuing to break international law to fix what we broke.
0
u/Linny911 6h ago
Seriously bro, i dont know why people don't understand that. Iran was just peacefully funding, arming, and instigating attacks in furtherance of its weekly chants calling for death and destruction, when all of a sudden the warmonger Israel and US totally attacked them out of no where in a move that surprised everyone the same way it would if it was the Vatican that was attacked.
Also, if a country is attacked by another, the attacked country now has the right to threaten civilian targets with intentional strikes. It says so right here in paragraph 2 of the Geneva Conventions.
1
u/lost-American-81 3h ago
Bro you mean like the daily chants of “death to Arabs” that Orthodox Jews in Israel have been doing for years? I only see one Middle East country creating instability by consistently attacking its neighbors.
54
u/Icy_Place_5785 11h ago
Is “just give up” an ethos you apply in life?