Image by Wesley Tingey.

International law is fighting for relevance. The outcome of this fight is likely to change the entire global political dynamics, which were shaped by World War II and sustained through the selective interpretation of the law by dominant countries.

In principle, international law should have always been relevant, if not paramount, in governing the relationships between all countries, large and small, to resolve conflicts before they turn into outright wars. It should also have worked to prevent a return to an era of exploitation that allowed Western colonialism to practically enslave the global south for hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, international law, which was in theory supposed to reflect global consensus, was hardly dedicated to peace or genuinely invested in the decolonization of the South.

From the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the war on Libya and numerous other examples, past and present, the UN was often used as a platform for the strong to impose their will on the weak. And whenever smaller countries collectively fought back, as the UN General Assembly often does, those with veto power, military, and economic leverage used their advantage to coerce the rest based on the maxim, “might makes right.”

It should therefore hardly be a surprise to see many intellectuals and politicians in the global south arguing that, aside from paying lip service to peace, human rights, and justice, international law has always been irrelevant.

This........

© CounterPunch