The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan wrote over the weekend that big parts of international law are now being referred to in the past tense, even by their defenders like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The might is right approach is openly endorsed by the current White House and implicitly by the Kremlin. Some mainstream political parties in Europe, including Britain, and others approaching the mainstream are close to accepting this or even supporting it. Does this matter? And is it reversible?

In the past, there were infractions of the international law framework. The greater powers often wrapped themselves in a good deal of hypocrisy in doing so. But even the lip service had a function. Too obvious gaps between what countries said they were doing, and why, and what they were clearly doing caused unwelcome embarrassment in the UN and wider world and, for democracies, awkward accountability at home.

Past wars generally had cover of some kind. The Korean War was not only backed by the UN but fought in its name, thanks to a convenient temporary boycott of the UN Security Council by the USSR for other reasons.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth arrives to deliver Congressional briefings on Iran at the Capitol on March 3, 2026 in Washington, DC (Image: Getty Images)

The 2003 Iraq invasion had, or at least claimed, a degree of Security Council cover: Resolution 1441, unanimously passed, said that Iraq would face ‘serious consequences’ if it continued to violate Resolutions. (Tony Blair and others tried unsuccessfully to get a second, more specific Resolution). But the getting of UN backing, or not, was central to the pre-war activity. And while the invasion’s legality will be discussed for ever, the........

© Herald Scotland