Fighting for a rules-based world order

The United Nations Charter states that the use of force against another state is permitted provided 2 conditions are met: in the event of self-defence following an armed attack, and subject to authorisation by the UN Security Council. Rules like these are something US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth simply brushes aside. According to the self-proclaimed Secretary of War, the US acts “without being deterred by what so-called international institutions claim”. He called rules that could paralyse US military action "stupid". A sign of the times? Are we witnessing the end of the international legal order? It is a question Stefaan Smis has been asked quite often of late by his students, after his international law lectures. He qualifies his view.

Stefaan Smis: “We too often focus on the rules that are being violated, but in many respects international law remains firmly intact. If you post a letter to the other side of the world, it arrives without fail. That is only possible because international agreements are in place. Areas such as international maritime law, international tax law and international health law are also generally well respected. We do not always stop to think about that.”

Geopolitically, however, it is a different story when we look at all the violence and warfare.
“That is nothing new under the sun. Major powers have always tended to breach international law whenever they felt their core interests were under threat. Think of France in West Africa, Russia in Ukraine and – albeit with less military violence – China in Asia.”

Does the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro by American troops earlier this year also fit into that tradition?
“That operation in Venezuela was almost a copy-and-paste of the invasion of Panama at the end of 1989, when the Americans arrested Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega and transferred him to the US. Since the departure of the Spanish and Portuguese colonial powers, the US has adhered to the Monroe Doctrine: it regards Central and South America as a backyard in which it calls the shots. Whenever a regime deemed ‘too left-wing’ came to power somewhere, Washington intervened. In 1973, for instance, General Augusto Pinochet carried out a military coup against the democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende, with US backing. And in Nicaragua, American president Ronald Reagan supplied weapons and funding to the Contras, the right-wing rebel groups that opposed the left-wing Sandinista government.”

The Clash once showed their solidarity with the triple album Sandinista!. Back then, the elephant in the room was the Soviet Union; today, it is China.
“America makes no secret of the fact that its actions in Venezuela and Iran are part of the power struggle with China. China buys large quantities of oil from those countries and has major financial, military and diplomatic interests there. Wherever possible, the US seeks to limit China’s access to raw materials, energy and regional influence. It is in that context that you should also view the repositioning of the United States towards Rwanda and Congo.”

So this once again comes down to access to raw materials?
“Yes. Washington has imposed sanctions on the Rwandan army and four senior officers because, according to the Americans, Rwanda is supporting the M23 rebels in eastern Congo. The US is seeking closer ties with Congo in order to gain control over strategic raw materials such as tin, cobalt, gold and what are now commonly referred to as rare earths. China has built up a significant advantage in that area.”

While the big players are fighting it out, Europeans stand by somewhat helplessly on the sidelines. Have we been naïve?
“When the Cold War ended, we thought we were entering a new world order — a period in which international law would prevail. That world order would be rules-based rather than driven by power.”

Did that hope exist only in Europe, or elsewhere too?
“In many parts of the world, those 10 to 20 years were still a period of relative euphoria. Take Africa, for example. In 2001, the Organisation of African Unity evolved into the African Union. It not only gained greater economic clout, but also the ability to intervene in crises and focus on peace and human rights.”

Did Trump effectively put an end to that hopeful era with a stroke of his pen?
“Not only the US, but countries such as China and Russia play the game in the same way. As I said earlier: major powers use their strength to get things done. Countries like Belgium do not have that power. We have no choice but to rely on international cooperation and on relations based on law.”

How meaningful is it still to talk about international rules if the major powers simply ignore them?
“We must continue to hold up that mirror, in my view. Because we know the consequences: large-scale violations of international law always lead to violence, war, human rights abuses and social inequality. After the two world wars, we said: never again. That is why we created the UN Charter, as a compass and an instrument for resolving conflicts peacefully.”

Does the UN Security Council fall far short?
“The Security Council is not perfect and is in need of reform. The 5 permanent members with veto power — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — were the victors of the Second World War. That is entirely outdated. Many other countries did not even exist in their current form at the time. If we want to give the Security Council more legitimacy and make it more democratic, then Latin America and Africa should also be represented among the permanent members, as should a country like India.”

And what about the much-criticised veto right?
“Ideally, it should be subject to stricter conditions or limited in certain situations. In that context, the International Court of Justice could rule when the Security Council exceeds its powers or commits breaches of international law. The International Court of Justice is the UN’s highest judicial body. It is empowered to settle disputes between states in a binding manner. It can also issue non-binding advisory opinions when different UN bodies or specialised agencies submit difficult legal questions.”

Has Europe responded adequately to the military actions of the US and Israel in Iran?
“In any case, we have not acted in a unified way. Some countries expressed support, Spain strongly condemned the attacks, and a large group has remained silent or taken no position at all. Yet we do need to take a clear stance. We must continue to unambiguously defend international law, even if Donald Trump pays it no attention. That also applies to academics. When we see things going wrong, we must be willing to call it out through opinion pieces, petitions, and so on. Many international law associations do indeed voice criticism, including the American Society of International Law.”

Why does Europe actually play a different role in this story?
“We are certainly not perfect — in some cases we are guilty of imperialism as well. But we have a strong tradition of cooperation and of attaching importance to international rules. Many wars have been fought on European soil, and an immense amount of blood has been shed as a result. That has had a profound influence on the way we think. The United States fights many wars, but never on its own territory. That is a very different story. Just look at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is not a problem for the Russians as long as the deaths and destruction remain in Ukraine. But if something happens on Russian territory, questions do arise.”