Labour MP for Nottingham East Nadia Whittome discusses the collapse of international law.
In 1945, from the wreckage of the Second World War, fifty countries signed the foundational treaty of the United Nations. The UN Charter set out a shared commitment to peace, upholding universal human rights and promoting social progress – principles that would become the cornerstone of modern international law.
Eighty years on, most countries are signatories, and those ideals remain as relevant as ever. Yet as world leaders unleash violence with impunity, the integrity of international law is being dismantled at an alarming rate. From Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, to Israel’s genocidal war on Palestinians, to Donald Trump’s extraordinary decision to launch military strikes on Venezuela and kidnap the country’s president by force, the message is clear: the rules do not apply to those powerful enough to ignore them.
International law broadly defines the legal responsibilities of sovereign states in their conduct towards one another, and in their treatment of individuals within state boundaries. As well as conflict, it covers shared global issues like protecting the environment, international waters, exploring outer space, global communications, and world trade. It is a complex system composed of treaties, decisions of international courts, and long-established norms. It is the erosion of the latter that most concerns me, because international law is only as strong as the collective commitment that states make to it.
The erosion of international law clearly did not begin with Donald Trump’s second presidential term. Although his most recent threats to invade Greenland have brought the issue uncomfortably close to home, the damage was done long before, and much of it by Western countries. In recent decades, powerful states have repeatedly treated international law as optional, applying it selectively when it suits their interests and ignoring it when it does not. Each such instance has weakened the international justice system as a whole.
International law is imperfect and unevenly applied, but it remains the only existing framework capable of restraining violence and safeguarding sovereignty
An obvious example is Israel’s treatment of Palestinians since 1948. Despite decades of forced displacement and prolonged occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, with recurring violence and repeated findings by international courts that Israel has violated international law, no meaningful enforcement has followed. Even a landmark International Court of Justice ruling demanding reparations and an end to occupation, live-streamed evidence of recent mass-killings in Gaza, and a UN commission report finding genocide, have not convinced some Western political leaders — including the UK government — to sanction Israel or stop all arms sales.
Allies or not, international law should be applied evenly if it is to retain any meaning, and it should especially be applied when it is most politically inconvenient. The UK was right to stand with Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion, but wrong and sorely hypocritical to abandon the same principles in its response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This obvious double standard makes a mockery of our commitment to international law.
Recent history has shown that Western states have also used international law to legitimise or justify harmful actions, leading people to lose faith in the very idea of an international justice system. In 2003, when the US and the UK invaded Iraq, officials of both countries argued that the invasion was justified by pre-existing UN Security Council resolutions regarding the 1991 Gulf War. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered British troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of its “weapons of mass destruction”. It was later found that such weapons did not exist, and the UN Secretary General at the time declared that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal and breached the UN Charter. Just a few years prior, the US justified a multinational military operation against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan on the basis of the doctrine of self-defence. The war lasted 20 years, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the Taliban has once again regained control of the country.
There are countless instances in which the international justice system has failed to prevent atrocities or deliver accountability, yet there are also undeniable moments where it has resolved territorial disputes, enabled humanitarian protection during conflict, and brought war criminals to justice. In reality, international law is imperfect and unevenly applied, but it remains the only existing framework capable of restraining violence and safeguarding sovereignty – abandoning it completely would invite a far more dangerous and unstable world governed by violence.
Since coming to power, this Labour government has faced a series of tests as international crises have erupted. Its selective application of international law has sown deep distrust among the public and undermined the government’s moral authority. In the case of the genocide in Gaza, it has been utterly shameful. While the government has finally, rightfully stood up to Trump over his threats to seize Greenland, it failed to do the same just weeks ago when Trump unlawfully attacked Venezuela and has not called out his continued threats to countries like Iran, Colombia and Cuba. Anything less than a consistent commitment to international law contributes to its erosion.
We have a favour to ask
LeftLion is Nottingham’s meeting point for information about what’s going on in our city, from the established organisations to the grassroots. We want to keep what we do free to all to access, but increasingly we are relying on revenue from our readers to continue. Can you spare a few quid each month to support us?
