Trump and his ilk imagine a world without international law, but they will not achieve it Philip Sands

nThe year 1945 was a pivotal moment in international law, marking the beginning of World War II Founding of the United Nations The International Military Tribunal to investigate war crimes committed during World War II. Eighty years later, it is increasingly said that we are living in a moment of great change, towards a world without such a law.

In September, the Financial Times published an editorial titled “A world without rulesThis opinion was based on two incidents: Israel launching a missile strike on a building hosting Hamas officials in Qatar; and the flight of 19 Russian drones into Polish airspace. The Financial Times said that this violation of the previous “rules-based order” is now leading to “a kind of chaos and the spread of violence.”

Others have taken what seems like a more optimistic – or accepting – view. Last year in the New Statesman, John Bew, professor of history at King’s College London and former foreign policy adviser to 10 Downing Street under Boris Johnson, I had “rules-based order” and challenged the position of those who advocate its continued role, including myself, as having a “sentimental” view. “Although we would like it to be so, we are not in an era of the rule of law today,” he wrote. He argues that “brute force is being asserted everywhere we look,” and that those operating on the global stage are deliberately flouting the rules of the international legal order that emerged after 1945. He points to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

This is definitely one opinion. But is it true that “brute force is confirmed everywhere we look”? I wonder. First, there’s nothing new about Raw Power. The assault on international rules has been more or less ongoing since 1945. Long before Ukraine or Qatar or drones over Poland, there was Hungary and Czechoslovakia; Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; Afghanistan; Democratic Republic of the Congo; And Iraq. We have known many acts of apparent chaos, and moments of intense chaos.

There is no doubt that there is widespread chaos today, at least with regard to some rules of international law. Given what is happening in Ukraine, in Israel/Palestine, and in Sudan, among other places, it is hard to disagree with Yale University professor Oona Hathaway, who said this month that the protection of civilians under international humanitarian law “is eroding to the point where it threatens to lose all meaning.” But the fact that some laws have been violated does not mean that they no longer exist. The rules set forth in Geneva Conventions of 1949 And with them 1977 Protocols On the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict, it did not cease exercising its authority in the face of attacks on civilians in Ukraine, in Israel on October 7, in Gaza thereafter, or in parts of Sudan.

While some rules are undoubtedly being violated, and seriously, the vast majority of the rules of international law continue to be respected and operate and are applied in a fully effective manner. My recent train journey, from London to Paris and back, was made possible by the implementation of a set of international treaties. So are the phone calls I make on my mobile phone, the foods I eat, and the medications I take. Every aspect of our daily lives is guided by international law. It works behind the scenes – invisible, silently, smoothly, and effectively.

In a post-rules world, you might expect international law-making to cease. This did not happen. In recent months, The countries agreed To negotiate a new United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, and adopted a new treaty to establish this convention The first international court On the crime of aggression since Nuremberg, in connection with the illegal Russian occupation of Ukraine.

In a post-rules world, you might also expect international courts to collapse or disappear. The reality is that a small number of courts have ceased to function or have disintegrated, and some countries are abandoning some courts, but the numbers are few and far between.

Many courts and other tribunals are busier than ever. The International Court of Justice currently has 23 controversial issues on its listwhich is more than I can ever remember. The Court’s advisory opinion function has attracted unprecedented participation in recent years – 37 States participated in the advisory opinion proceedings on the Chagos Islands, leading to the February 2019 decision that the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius was illegal. And this year, 98 countries participated In the fatwa on climate change. This is the highest level of participation in any case in the court’s history, or its predecessor.

I do not ignore the attacks launched by some parties on parts of international law. As Giuliano da Empoli explains in his book Predator watchHowever, the new populist class of political predators and digital invaders has made an enemy not only of lawyers, but also of their rules and institutions, their courts and judges, and the post-1945 commitment to the rules of free trade, the rights of individuals and groups, and the use of force. If their attacks succeed, he writes, “not only will the parties of lawyers and technocrats be swept away, but also liberal democracy as we have known it to date.”

Skip the previous newsletter promotion

After promoting the newsletter

It may seem tempting today to abandon the 1945 settlement. As US President Donald Trump has shown, a little bravado can allow you to boycott the UN climate change conference, or embark on a policy of killing alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean. But these are not policies that can be sustainable in the long term. They produce reactions from others. The UK has reportedly halted some intelligence support to the US in the Caribbean, for fear of complicity in crimes, although Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has played down the significance of this report. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced: “We have followed with concern the military operations in the Caribbean region, because they violate international law.”

Therefore, we are not in a world without law. However, we are in a world where some want to strip away or get rid of some international rules, and this is the ongoing struggle. Of course, it may get worse before it gets better. But history shows a pattern over the centuries – the establishment of international rules and institutions is followed by their partial destruction, followed by reconstruction, and the process of reconstruction generally depends on what came before. And so it will be again.

There is nothing new in Trump’s bluster. Hans Frank He bragged once, and so did General Augusto Pinochet. This approach It has given us Iraq, Brexit talk in Northern Ireland, and many other disasters. Then, over time, these people face other realities – political, diplomatic, economic, military, environmental, humanitarian, legal – and learn that a settlement must be reached, which will lead to agreements, and those agreements will be subject to international rules, one way or another.

• Philip Sands is Professor of Law at University College London

• This is an excerpt from A World Without Law? F. A. Mann Lecture No. 46delivered by Philip Sands on November 18, 2025