In recent decades, the remarkable immunity that Israel has experienced has placed international law and its institutions at a critical crossroads. Israel has slain UN workers, prohibited UNRWA, blocked UN representatives from entry, and repeatedly denounced the UN and its officials.
Throughout history, Israeli governments and their allies have also utilized every available method to pressure the International Criminal Court (ICC) not to probe Israeli offenses, ranging from direct threats of physical harm to sanctions and slander. Assaults on the court have only escalated after it issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
A firm Israel supporter, US President Donald Trump has already signed an executive order reinstating sanctions against ICC officials. This is in addition to other choices he has made, such as the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization, which are a direct assault on global multilateralism. On Tuesday, the US president openly showed his complete disdain for international law by declaring his desire to “take over” Gaza and “control it.”
These developments raise questions about the UN’s global system’s salvability
Despite being established to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” in 1945, the UN has largely struggled to prevent and halt conflicts for decades. Its creation marked the beginning of an era of “peace for some” – peace for economically advanced nations that engage in proxy wars in formerly colonized countries. So, should the world abandon the concept of an international legal order entirely?
As the world faces the imminent threat of climate change and the rapid acceleration of militarization, it is evident that we need a system that brings people together under the principle of justice. A truly equitable international legal order, one that does not favor the powerful, has already been suggested by various thinkers.
For example, leading Chilean jurist Alejandro Alvarez suggested a “new international law” more than 70 years ago. In his time (1946-1955) as a judge at the International Court of Justice, he contended that the European legal tradition, which is the basis of much of international law, was not enough to meet legal challenges in parts of the world such as the Americas.
Disagreeing with several choices he considered, Alvarez promoted a “new international law” taking into consideration the particular decolonization historical reality in the rest of the globe and articulating the interests and viewpoints of emerging states.
During that period, there was a clear effort by states of the Global South to assert international law in their favor. However, economically advanced nations used their influence to suppress such attempts.
The world is now at a historic crossroads where these efforts must be revitalized if the concept of an international legal order is to endure. Action on Palestine can serve as a catalyst, as the genocide in Gaza symbolizes broader patterns of domination and exploitation that characterize the current global system.
There are already existing attempts by Global South states to move for Israel’s expulsion from the United Nations. Moreover, there is a petition signed by 500 legal experts calling for the UN General Assembly to strip Israel of its membership in an effort to protect the legitimacy of the organization.
After the vote, the US Congress sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres threatening that if this vote went forward, they would strip the US of funding. Though the power of the US lobby in the UN is well recognized, a public ultimatum to reduce funding if the UN conducts its normal functions is economic coercion that openly undermines the institution’s authority and the basis of international law.
If the US wants to reduce its funding to the UN, then a straightforward answer would be to relocate the UN Headquarters from New York to some other place in the Global South. It would save a tremendous amount of money, get more support from the Global South, and facilitate increased participation. This shift would eliminate the dilemma of having an international legal body based in a country that has consistently been one of the most prominent violators of the very principles.
A historical analysis plainly shows the imperative to dismantle institutions that reinforce imperial power. The institution includes the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Key leaders of the decolonisation movement, such as Thomas Sankara and Amílcar Cabral, supported demands for the elimination of these institutions. To lend greater voice to the Global South, institutions like the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice need to be given greater powers. It is an argument often underscored by Algerian judge Mohammad Bedjaoui.
Furthermore, this moment presents an opportunity for swift international law-making, building upon past efforts to establish a new international legal order. Pacific island nations are already extending the reach of international law by calling upon the International Court of Justice to tackle state responsibility relating to climate change.
The immediate concerns of genocide, neocolonialism, the climate crisis, and unbridled impunity force us to reconsider the situation. We cannot afford to be cynical. It is essential to begin constructing a new international legal system that values justice over power.
