Special to Islamabad POST
By Adam M. Tugio
International law these days mostly derives from European practices shaped in the 17th Century. The 1648 Westphalia Treaty set the framework for relationships between European monarchs. They were pledged to respect for sovereignty and exercise non-interference in domestic affairs of other countries. These principles become the foundation of today’s international relations, reflected in the United Nations Charter.
Yet, if we observe closely, it was pretty much a European legal system. Dutch scholar Hugo Grotius – often hailed as the father of international law – even assumed these laws were meant only for “civilized” European monarchs, completely sidelining the rich legal traditions in Asia, the Middle East, and other parts of the world which he contended the latter as less developed or even barbaric —a clear echo of colonial biases.
By the 20th century things started shifting, thanks largely to decolonization process following the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. Newly independent states sought to shape the laws governing global interactions, inspired by Ten Principles of 1955 Bandung Declaration of Asia-Africa Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement’s objectives. UN General Assembly suddenly become fora for reinterpretation of legal structure that reinforces old power structures.
Take example of the law of the sea. Newly independent coastal states pushed for having expanded maritime zones, securing jurisdiction over exclusive economic zones (EEZs) stretching 200 nautical miles from their shores. Archipelagic countries argued to close the pocket of vast high seas within their waters and subjected them to sovereignty of countries with this specific geographical unique situation. These new legal regimes were finally codified in the 1982 UNCLOS. In climate negotiations, the Global South also pushed for “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” underscoring that the Western countries bear more responsibility in mitigation of global climate change due to their historical emission.
In most cases, the West could no longer dictate the rules of global engagement. Yet, this shift has exposed stark inconsistencies in the so-called “rule based order.” Consider the West’s response to two contemporary crises. In Ukraine, the West leaders promptly condemned Russia’s invasion, invoking international law to impose sanctions and rally global support. Contrast this with their muted response to Israel’s genocidal acts against Palestinians and continue supplying weapons to Israel – thus revealing Western complicity. As Yanis Varoufakis, former Greece’s Finance Minister, cynically notes, the phrase of “land without a people for the people without a land” sounds like preserving old practices of white settlers to grab indigenous lands with forces because the former considered it as “terra nulius” or a land without people.
This double standard fuels a growing perception that the so called “rules-based order” apply only when they serve Western interests. Today, the idea of a rule-based order feels increasingly like a legal relic of the past. As a response, the West has started to get creative with legal strategies to keep its influence and upper hand position alive.
Take, for instance, EU regulatory frameworks for the importation of commodities. The regulations introduce various technical requirements such as traceability, geolocation of productions and verification of legal compliance with pretext of preserving environmental. Albeit sounds positive in its objective, these technical standards eventually create non-tariff barriers for import of commodities from developing countries with the ultimate goal of protecting local producers in European.
Language, too, has become a sort of tool for reinvention. By reworking familiar terms and introducing fresh legal concepts, the West is trying to redraw the “rules of the game.” In many cases, values like free speech, human rights, and democracy only take on true meaning when they fit with Western interests. Often, this kind of semantic acrobatics acts as a cover for waning influence. These legal maneuvers, in effect, compensate for a declining capacity to enforce direct control and creating what it is called by Martti Koskenniemi, Finnish lawyer and diplomat, as concealed imperialism.
Traditional international law isn’t entirely collapsing, but it is definitely transforming; the old, state-centric order and that narrow post Second World War arrangement just don’t fit with today’s multipolar reality. The question now is how the world can steer this change into a legal system that genuinely reflects its diverse global membership. Let me offer my take on this.
First, real inclusivity goes beyond hollow promises. It necessitates a genuine commitment to multilateralism. The UN, despite its limitations, remains the most important forum for such dialogue. The structure of the UN Security Council, however, has to be reformed so that the Global South is well represented. Miiddle powers like Mexico, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Turkiye, and Australia might inject much-needed regional perspectives into global deliberations to ensure the credibility of international legal system. They can also work together with countries in their respective region through regional organizations to amplify their views for promoting fairness in international law.
Second, the world needs teamwork and cooperative solution to address issues of shared concern — from climate change to pandemics, and from transnational organised crimes to cyber threats. The Paris Agreement, for instance, might be flawed, but it shows what’s possible when nations negotiate as equals. Perhaps extending the approach of the Agreement which recognised different degree of responsibility amongst states into trade, security, and human rights, could pave the way for a more inclusive international order.
Third, rebuilding trust in a system that many say is unfair might be our best bet for meaningful change. A renewed emphasis for peaceful resolution of disputes is crucial for fostering greater trust and understanding between states. For this reason, dialogue and diplomacy are critically important. Legal moves should stand for true fairness rather than just protecting old, or self-serving interests since global community has been witnessing how law is twisted into a political tool.
In conclusion, the evolution of international law, from the courts of European monarchs to the halls of the UN, has always been a story of adaptation. Today, as old privileges erode and new voices rise, the challenge is to craft a system that’s truly international, not just a shadow of Western dominance. The decay of the old order isn’t an end, but it’s an opportunity—if only the world can seize it.
