But what about international law – continued.
The West's one-sidedness in saying things aloud is not coherent or compelling
4th March 2026
*
From time-to-time this law and policy blog touches upon international law. The last time a post was devoted to it was only in January this year, though that already seems a long time ago.
The argument put forward in that post was that even if international law cannot readily be enforced, it still nonetheless can be recognised. This means international law, like any body of law, still exists, even if it is being disregarded.
The tree still makes a noise when it falls in the forest.
But.
It is also fair to say that many are sceptical and dismissive about international law, and even some (eminent) lawyers regard it as essentially a fiction.
*
One problem about international law is that it can often seem one-sided.
Take for example the inability of many (though not all) European countries to say plainly that the attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States were not in accordance with international law, let alone in breach.
When a European territory (like Greenland) and a European country (Ukraine) are threatened or attacked, then European leaders are ready to invoke international law.
But when it is not a European territory or a European country at stake, there is an awkward silence.
Of course, the United Kingdom government know that the attacks on Iran were illegal – it is the necessary implication of the stated position on the validity of “defensive” attacks.
And, of course, we know why as a matter of realpolitik the United Kingdom government thinks it cannot say this aloud.
No sensible person is under any illusion on either point.
But.
One can also see why elsewhere in the world many do not take the West’s professed attachment to international law seriously.
*
Iran’s scattergun retaliations against those not concerned with the American and Israeli attacks are plainly against international law.
And that these retaliations are against international law is said aloud, including by the United Kingdom government.
We thereby have one without the other.
We openly say one thing is against International law, but are closed-mouthed about the other.
*
Yet unless international law applies to all nations (the clues are in the words “international” and “law”) then it can hardly be called international. Or law.
But in something akin to “victor’s justice”, it is a standard we only seem to invoke plainly against some countries and not others.
From the perspective of this liberal blog, international law is a good thing. In general the more international law is recognised and even enforced the better.
But international law will never get real traction when it is deployed in such a one-sided way.
A thing cannot be both universal and partial.
And so to condemn Iran for breaching international law in its reckless retaliations to attacks, but not the countries making those attacks, means you end up with a position that is neither coherent nor compelling.
Yet for international law to gain purchase in the world, the case for it needs to be coherent and compelling.
Else, like the cynics maintain, it is (or will be seen as) little more than fiction.
**
This post is cross-posted at my The Empty City personal blog, which is run in parallel with this blog.
***
Although I am in favour of international norms discouraging war, I’m not convinced that international law is the answer.
My difficulty with it is that any treaty which incorporates it will have received at best cursory examination by our Parliamentarians. They are not debated. So then, for laws intended to have, well, ‘international’ consequences it is very difficult to give them democratic justification. And without that, it is problematic, to say the least, for there to be recognition of international law as a stand-alone concept.
And of course, in the absence of effective ‘policing’, when it suits them the strong are not going to abide by it. In the minds of international law lawyers international law may well still exist and maybe the treaties will not actually be abrogated, but the inability to enforce progressively diminishes its perceived value.
Laws need to command general acceptance amongst those to whom they are intended to apply. In the absence of that acceptance they fade away.
My mainstrean Tory chum Ian asks must we regard international law as a given? What is the statutory or treaty basis that prevents the UK from allowing the USA from using our bases until we are sure there is an imminent threat, and who says what is an imminent threat given a continuing low level threat? If no statutory basis, do we have to accept law developed by foreign judges?