Western Instrumentalization of International Law
The international legal order, once envisioned as a universal framework of rules designed to govern relations between nations, is facing a profound crisis of legitimacy. While purportedly intended to ensure peace, justice, and cooperation, many argue that international law is increasingly being weaponized and instrumentalized by Western powers to advance their own geopolitical and economic interests. This manipulation undermines the very foundations of the system, erodes trust, and fuels resentment among states perceived as being unfairly targeted or excluded. Understanding this dynamic is crucial in today's world, where global power struggles are intensifying and the potential for conflict is ever-present. The erosion of international law's perceived impartiality carries significant risks, potentially leading to a breakdown in diplomatic norms, an increase in unilateral actions, and a more fragmented, unstable global order. Consider, for instance, the selective application of international legal principles regarding humanitarian intervention, the differing standards applied to Western and non-Western states concerning human rights, and the use of international economic institutions to enforce policies that disproportionately benefit developed nations. These instances contribute to a growing perception of bias and a sense that the “rules-based order” is not applied equally to all. The seeds of the current crisis Western Instrumentalization of International Law sown long ago, deeply embedded in the historical development of international law itself. A critical examination reveals how Western powers have historically shaped and influenced the evolution of international legal norms to align with their evolving interests. The genesis of modern international law is inextricably linked to the age of colonialism. European powers, in their quest for global dominance, developed and codified international legal principles that served to legitimize their territorial acquisitions, resource exploitation, and political control over vast swathes of the world. Concepts such as terra nullius (nobody's land) were used to justify the seizure of territories inhabited by indigenous populations, while the notion of "civilized nations" granted European states a privileged position in the international system. Treaties signed with colonized peoples were often unequal and coerced, reflecting the vast power imbalances of the time. The Congress of Berlin in 1884-85, where European powers carved up Africa amongst themselves without any African representation, epitomizes this era. This historical legacy continues to shape contemporary perceptions of international law, particularly among developing nations who view it as a tool that was historically used to oppress and exploit them. Further cementing this view is the Western Instrumentalization of International Law impact of colonial-era boundaries, which often serve as sources of conflict and instability Western Instrumentalization of International Law and between post-colonial states. The imposed legal frameworks, designed to facilitate colonial administration and resource extraction, often disregarded existing indigenous legal systems and social structures, leading to lasting social and political disruptions. For example, the application of Western property Western Instrumentalization of International Law regimes often undermined traditional land tenure systems, leading to displacement and economic marginalization of local communities. The enduring impact of these historical injustices fuels skepticism towards the purported neutrality of international law and contributes to Western Instrumentalization of International Law perception that it continues to serve the interests of Western powers. Following World War II, the establishment of the United Nations and the codification of human rights and international humanitarian law represented a significant step towards a more just and equitable international order. However, the dominance of Western powers, particularly the United States, in shaping the institutions and norms of this new order cannot be ignored. The UN Security Council, with its permanent members holding veto power, reflects the post-war power balance and gives Western states a disproportionate influence over decisions relating to international peace and security. The Bretton Woods institutions – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – were also heavily influenced by Western economic ideology and have often imposed conditions on loans and financial assistance that have been criticized for exacerbating inequality and undermining national sovereignty in developing countries. Furthermore, the selective enforcement of international legal norms has been a persistent issue. While Western states have often Western Instrumentalization of International Law human rights and democracy abroad, they have frequently been criticized for double standards, particularly when their own strategic or economic interests are at stake. The US intervention in Vietnam, the support for authoritarian regimes in Latin America during the Cold War, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are just a few examples of instances where Western powers have been accused of violating international law or selectively applying its principles. These actions have undermined the credibility of the international Western Instrumentalization of International Law system and fueled the perception that it Western Instrumentalization of International Law being used as a tool to advance Western geopolitical goals. The creation of international criminal tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), while intended to promote accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity, has also been criticized for its perceived bias against non-Western states. The ICC's focus on cases in Africa, while partly due to referrals by African governments themselves, has led to accusations of selective prosecution and has further fueled resentment towards the international legal system among some nations. This perceived bias undermines the court's legitimacy and effectiveness, hindering its ability to promote justice and accountability on a global scale. The structure of the UN system, with its Security Council veto power held by five permanent members (including the US, UK, and France), allows these countries to effectively block any action they deem contrary to their national interests, further solidifying the West’s dominance over global governance. The ascendance of neoliberal economic policies in the late 20th century further entrenched Western dominance within the international legal system. The "Washington Consensus," a set of economic prescriptions promoted by the IMF and the World Bank, emphasized deregulation, privatization, and free trade. These policies were often imposed on developing countries as conditions for receiving loans and financial assistance, leading to accusations of economic coercion and undermining national sovereignty. The implementation of structural adjustment programs, often mandated by the IMF, resulted in cuts to social services, privatization of essential infrastructure, and increased vulnerability to global economic shocks. These policies disproportionately affected the poor and marginalized, leading to increased inequality and social unrest. The promotion of free trade agreements, while ostensibly designed to promote economic growth, has also been criticized for benefiting Western corporations at the expense of developing countries. These agreements often include provisions that protect intellectual property rights and investment interests, but lack adequate safeguards for labor and environmental standards. This can lead to exploitation of workers, environmental degradation, and a loss of policy space for developing countries to pursue their own development strategies. The use of international arbitration mechanisms, such Western Instrumentalization of International Law the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, has also raised concerns about corporate power and the erosion of national sovereignty. ISDS allows foreign investors to sue governments directly in international tribunals, bypassing national courts. This can create a chilling effect on government regulation, as states fear being sued for implementing policies that protect public health, the environment, or labor rights. The rise of neoliberalism and the "Washington Consensus" has thus contributed to a perception that international law and institutions are being used to promote a specific economic ideology that benefits Western powers and transnational corporations at the expense of developing countries and the global South. This perception undermines the legitimacy of the international legal system and fuels calls for a more equitable and inclusive global order. The pressure exerted by Western nations on developing countries to adopt specific legal and regulatory frameworks aligned with neoliberal principles further exemplifies this instrumentalization. This extends beyond economic policy to include areas such as intellectual property rights, environmental regulations, and labor laws, often imposing standards that may not be appropriate for the specific context and developmental stage of these nations. The trend of Western instrumentalization of international law continues unabated in the 21st century, manifesting in various forms and impacting global relations in profound ways. The following subsections highlight some key aspects of this phenomenon. One of the most persistent criticisms leveled against the international legal system is its selective enforcement and the application of double standards. Western powers often prioritize certain legal norms, such as human rights and democracy promotion, when dealing with countries that are perceived as adversaries or competitors, while overlooking or downplaying violations of these same norms by allies or strategic partners. For example, the condemnation of human rights abuses in countries like China and Russia is often contrasted with Western Instrumentalization of International Law muted criticism of similar abuses in countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt, which are close allies Western Instrumentalization of International Law the West. This selective approach undermines the credibility of human rights advocacy and fuels accusations of hypocrisy. The intervention in Libya in 2011, ostensibly on humanitarian grounds, is often cited as an example of selective enforcement, particularly in comparison to the lack of similar action in response Western Instrumentalization of International Law human rights abuses in other countries, such as Syria. The intervention in Libya, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973, was initially framed as a mission to protect civilians from Muammar Gaddafi's regime. However, the intervention quickly evolved into a broader effort to overthrow Gaddafi, leading to accusations that the intervention exceeded its mandate and violated international law. The subsequent chaos and instability in Libya, which have contributed to the rise of extremist groups and the ongoing refugee crisis, have further fueled criticism of the intervention and its selective nature. The differing responses to territorial disputes, such as the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 and the Western Instrumentalization of International Law occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, also highlight the issue of selective enforcement. While the annexation of Crimea was widely condemned by Western powers and resulted in sanctions against Russia, the occupation of Palestinian territories, which has been ongoing for decades and has been condemned by numerous UN resolutions, has faced far less Western Instrumentalization of International Law consequences. This discrepancy in treatment further undermines the perception of impartiality and fuels accusations of double standards. Furthermore, the use of international law to justify unilateral actions, such as the US drone Western Instrumentalization of International Law in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, raises serious concerns about the erosion of the principle of state sovereignty and the accountability of powerful nations. These drone strikes, often carried out without the consent of the host government, have resulted in civilian casualties and have been criticized for violating international humanitarian law. The lack of transparency and accountability surrounding these strikes further undermines the credibility of the international legal system and fuels resentment towards Western powers. Council on Foreign Relations - US Drone Strikes in Yemen International institutions, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), are increasingly being used as instruments Western Instrumentalization of International Law advance Western geopolitical and economic interests. The UN Security Council, with its veto power held by permanent members, can be used to block resolutions that are deemed contrary to Western interests, while the IMF and the World Bank can impose conditions on loans and financial assistance that promote neoliberal economic policies. The WTO, while ostensibly designed to promote free trade, has been criticized for favoring the interests of developed countries and transnational corporations. For instance, the US has repeatedly blocked the appointment of new judges to the WTO's Appellate Body, effectively crippling the organization's ability to resolve trade disputes. This action has been widely condemned by other countries and is seen as an attempt to undermine the WTO's authority and weaken the multilateral trading system. The use of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy has also become increasingly prevalent, with Western powers often imposing sanctions on countries that are deemed to be in violation of international law or that are pursuing policies that are contrary to Western interests. While sanctions can be an effective tool for pressuring states to comply with international norms, they can also have devastating consequences for the civilian population, Western Instrumentalization of International Law in countries with Western Instrumentalization of International Law economies and fragile governance. The sanctions imposed on Iran, for example, have had a severe impact on the Iranian economy and Western Instrumentalization of International Law contributed to widespread hardship and Western Instrumentalization of International Law unrest. The extraterritorial application of national laws, such as the US's use of secondary sanctions to target companies that do business with Iran or Cuba, also raises concerns about the erosion of state sovereignty and the potential for conflicts of jurisdiction. These actions can create significant uncertainty and legal risks for businesses and can undermine the stability of the international economic system. The manipulation of international legal norms to justify military interventions, such as Western Instrumentalization of International Law invocation of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine in the case of Libya, also raises serious concerns about the instrumentalization of international law. While R2P is intended to prevent mass atrocities, it has been criticized for being selectively applied and for being used as a pretext for regime change. The intervention in Libya, which was initially authorized under R2P, quickly evolved into a broader effort to overthrow Gaddafi, leading to accusations that the intervention exceeded its mandate and violated international law. UN Chronicle - Responsibility to Protect The increasing assertion of Western power and the instrumentalization of international law are contributing to an erosion of state sovereignty and a weakening of multilateralism. The rise of unilateral actions, such as the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Agreement on climate change, undermines the principles of international cooperation and weakens the ability of states to collectively address global challenges. The imposition of national laws with extraterritorial reach, such as the US's Helms-Burton Act, which allows US citizens to sue foreign companies that do business with Cuba, also raises concerns about the erosion of Western Instrumentalization of International Law sovereignty. These actions can create significant tensions between states and can undermine the stability of the international legal system. The increasing reliance on ad hoc coalitions and informal alliances, rather than on multilateral institutions, also weakens the multilateral system. These coalitions are often formed on the basis of shared interests and values, and can exclude countries that do not share these interests or values. This can lead to a more fragmented and less inclusive international order. The undermining of international courts and tribunals, Western Instrumentalization of International Law as the International Criminal Court (ICC), also weakens the rule of law and undermines the ability of the international community to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The US has consistently opposed the ICC and has refused to become a party to the Rome Statute, which established the court. The US has also imposed Western Instrumentalization of International Law on ICC officials in response to the court's investigation of alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan. These actions undermine the ICC's legitimacy and effectiveness and send a message that powerful states are not subject to the same rules as Western Instrumentalization of International Law else. The increasing polarization of the international system and the rise of great power competition further exacerbate these trends. The growing rivalry between the US and China, in particular, is leading to a more fragmented and less cooperative international order. Both countries are seeking to assert Western Instrumentalization of International Law influence on the global stage and are challenging the existing international legal and institutional framework. This competition can lead to a weakening of international norms and institutions and can make it more difficult to address global challenges such as climate Western Instrumentalization of International Law, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation. The withdrawal of states from international treaties and agreements, such as the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Western Instrumentalization of International Law Forces (INF) Treaty, also undermines the stability of the international legal system and increases the risk of conflict. These actions can erode trust and confidence between states and can make it more difficult to achieve arms control and disarmament agreements. Arms Control Association - INF Treaty The role of international lawyers and academia in perpetuating or challenging the instrumentalization of international law is a complex and often overlooked aspect of this phenomenon. International lawyers, particularly those working in Western law firms and institutions, often play a key role in shaping the interpretation and application of international law. Their expertise is sought after by governments, corporations, and international organizations, and their opinions can have a significant impact on the Western Instrumentalization of International Law of international legal norms. However, there is a risk that international lawyers may be influenced by the interests of their clients or by their own ideological biases. This can lead to a selective interpretation of international law that favors the interests of Western powers or transnational corporations. Academia also plays a crucial role in shaping the understanding of international law. International law scholars often engage in critical analysis of international legal norms and institutions, and their Western Instrumentalization of International Law can influence the development of international law. However, there is a risk that academia may be influenced by funding sources or by prevailing intellectual trends. This can lead to a lack of critical engagement with the power dynamics that shape international law and to a perpetuation of Western-centric perspectives. The dominance of Western legal education and scholarship in the field of international law also contributes to the problem. Western universities and law schools are often seen as the leading centers of international law scholarship, and their graduates are often highly sought after by governments, corporations, and international organizations. This Western Instrumentalization of International Law lead to a situation where Western perspectives and values are disproportionately represented in the field of international law, and where non-Western perspectives are marginalized. The lack of diversity in the field of international law, both in terms of nationality and intellectual background, also contributes to the problem. The field is often dominated by lawyers and scholars from Western countries, who may lack a deep understanding of the perspectives and experiences of non-Western societies. This can lead to a lack of empathy and understanding, and to a perpetuation of Western-centric biases. The need for greater diversity and inclusivity in the field of international law is widely recognized, but progress has been slow. Efforts are being made to promote the participation of lawyers and scholars from non-Western countries in international legal institutions and to encourage the study of international law from a non-Western perspective. However, more needs to be done to address the structural inequalities that perpetuate Western dominance in the field of international law. The ethical responsibilities of international lawyers also need to be more carefully considered. International lawyers have a responsibility to uphold the principles of international law and to act in the public interest. However, they also have a responsibility to their clients. These responsibilities can sometimes conflict, particularly in cases where the client's interests are not aligned with the principles of international law. International lawyers need to be aware of Western Instrumentalization of International Law potential conflicts and to exercise their professional judgment with integrity Western Instrumentalization of International Law independence. The continued instrumentalization of international law by Western powers carries significant implications for the future of the global order. It threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the international legal system, erode trust between states, and Western Instrumentalization of International Law the risk of conflict and instability. The erosion of trust in international law and institutions Western Instrumentalization of International Law lead to increased geopolitical instability and great power competition. When states perceive that the rules of the game are being manipulated to favor certain players, they are less likely to abide by those rules themselves. This can lead to a breakdown in Western Instrumentalization of International Law norms, an increase in unilateral actions, and a more fragmented and unstable global order. The growing rivalry between the US and China, in particular, is exacerbating these trends. Both countries are seeking to assert their influence on the global stage and are challenging the existing international legal and institutional framework. This competition can lead to a weakening of international norms and institutions and can make it more difficult to address global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and Western Instrumentalization of International Law proliferation. The rise of regional powers, such as India, Brazil, and Russia, also complicates the geopolitical landscape. These countries are seeking Western Instrumentalization of International Law play a greater role in global affairs and are challenging the dominance of Western powers. This can lead to a more multipolar world, but it can also increase the risk of conflict and instability. The increasing prevalence of hybrid warfare, which combines conventional military tactics with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, further destabilizes the international system. These tactics are often used to undermine the sovereignty Western Instrumentalization of International Law stability of states and to interfere in their internal affairs. The lack of clear legal norms governing cyber warfare and disinformation makes it difficult to hold states accountable for these actions. The erosion of arms control agreements and the modernization of nuclear weapons also increase the risk of conflict and instability. The US withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the New START Treaty has Western Instrumentalization of International Law concerns about a new arms race and has increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. The development of new weapons technologies, such as hypersonic missiles and artificial intelligence-powered weapons systems, further complicates the security landscape. Brookings - What is Hybrid Warfare? The instrumentalization of international law can also lead to economic fragmentation and trade wars. When states perceive that the international trading system is being manipulated to favor certain countries or corporations, they are more likely to resort to protectionist measures and trade barriers. This can lead to a decline in international trade and investment and can harm global economic growth. The imposition of tariffs and other trade restrictions Western Instrumentalization of International Law the US under the Trump administration has already led to a significant disruption of global trade flows. The trade war between the US and China has had a particularly negative impact on the global economy, and has led to increased uncertainty and volatility in financial markets. The rise of economic Western Instrumentalization of International Law and protectionism is also fueled by concerns about income inequality and job losses. Many people feel that globalization has benefited corporations and the wealthy at the expense of workers and the middle class. This has led to increased support for policies that protect domestic industries and jobs. The use of economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy can also have a negative impact on the global economy. Sanctions can disrupt trade and investment flows and can harm the economies of both Western Instrumentalization of International Law targeted country and the countries that impose the sanctions. The sanctions imposed on Iran, for example, have had a severe impact on the Iranian economy and have contributed to widespread hardship and social unrest. The increasing use of digital technologies and the rise of the digital economy also present new challenges for the international trading system. The lack of clear legal norms governing cross-border data flows, digital taxation, and intellectual property rights creates uncertainty and can hinder the growth of the digital economy. The potential for cyberattacks and data breaches also poses a threat to international trade and investment. The need for a more inclusive and equitable international trading system is widely recognized. This requires addressing the concerns of developing countries and ensuring that they have a fair opportunity to participate in global trade. It also requires strengthening international cooperation on issues such as tax avoidance and financial regulation. IMF - Trade Fragmentation: Implications for the Global Economy The selective enforcement of international human rights law and the instrumentalization of humanitarian interventions can exacerbate human rights and humanitarian crises. When states Western Instrumentalization of International Law that human rights are being selectively applied or that humanitarian interventions are being used as a pretext for regime change, Western Instrumentalization of International Law are less likely to respect human rights and to cooperate with humanitarian efforts. This can lead to increased human rights abuses and to a worsening of humanitarian crises. The intervention in Libya in 2011, for example, has been criticized for exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the country and for contributing to the rise of extremist groups. The lack of a coordinated international response to the Syrian civil war has also led to a devastating humanitarian crisis and to Western Instrumentalization of International Law human rights abuses. The increasing prevalence of armed conflicts and the displacement of populations are creating unprecedented humanitarian challenges. The number of refugees and internally displaced persons has reached record levels, and the humanitarian system is struggling to cope with the growing needs. The politicization of humanitarian aid and the use of humanitarian assistance as a tool of foreign policy Western Instrumentalization of International Law complicate the humanitarian response. The denial of humanitarian access to populations in need is also a growing problem, particularly in conflict zones. The need for a more principled and impartial humanitarian response is widely recognized. This requires ensuring that humanitarian assistance is provided based on need alone and that it is not used as a tool of foreign policy. It also requires strengthening international cooperation on humanitarian issues and ensuring that humanitarian organizations have the resources and access they need to carry out their work. The protection of civilians in armed conflict is also a critical priority. This requires upholding the principles of international humanitarian law and holding perpetrators of war crimes accountable. It also Western Instrumentalization of International Law strengthening efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts and to address the root causes of displacement. The promotion of human rights and democracy is also essential for preventing and resolving humanitarian crises. This requires supporting civil society organizations and promoting good governance and the rule of law. It also requires holding states accountable for human rights abuses and ensuring that victims have access to justice. ICRC - Contemporary Challenges for International Humanitarian Law The perception that international law is being instrumentalized can erode public trust in international institutions and democratic values. When people believe that the rules are rigged or that powerful states are not being held accountable, they are more likely to become cynical and disengaged from the international system. This can lead to a decline in support for international cooperation and to a weakening of democratic institutions. The rise of populism and nationalism in many countries is fueled by a sense of disillusionment with the international system and a belief that global elites are not addressing the concerns of ordinary people. This can lead to increased polarization and social division, and can undermine the stability of democratic societies. The spread of disinformation and fake news also poses a threat to public trust and democratic values. Disinformation campaigns are often used to undermine public confidence in institutions and to sow discord and division. The lack of critical thinking skills and media literacy makes it difficult for people to distinguish between credible information and disinformation. The need for greater transparency and accountability in international institutions is widely recognized. This requires ensuring that decision-making processes are open and accessible to the public and that states are held accountable for their actions. It also requires strengthening the role of civil society organizations in monitoring and advocating for human rights and democracy. The promotion of education and media literacy is also essential for Western Instrumentalization of International Law disinformation and promoting critical thinking skills. This requires investing in education and supporting independent journalism. It also requires promoting media literacy programs that teach people how to critically Western Instrumentalization of International Law information and to identify fake news. The strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law is also essential for maintaining public trust and promoting democratic values. This requires ensuring that elections are free and Western Instrumentalization of International Law and that the judiciary is independent and impartial. It also requires protecting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The promotion Western Instrumentalization of International Law social justice and economic equality is also essential for addressing the root causes of populism and Western Instrumentalization of International Law. This requires investing in education and job training and ensuring that everyone has access to affordable healthcare and housing. It also requires promoting fair trade and addressing income inequality. Different regions and countries view and respond to the instrumentalization of international law in various ways, reflecting their unique historical experiences, geopolitical interests, and cultural values. Understanding these diverse perspectives is crucial for addressing the challenges facing the international legal system. Western countries, particularly the United States and European Union member states, often view international law as a cornerstone of the liberal international order. They tend to emphasize the importance of upholding international norms and institutions and promoting human rights and democracy. However, they are also often accused of selectively applying international law and of using it to advance their own geopolitical and economic interests. Western policymakers often argue that they are acting in the best interests of the international community and that their actions are necessary to maintain peace and security. They may justify interventions in other countries on humanitarian grounds or on the basis of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine. However, critics argue that these interventions are often driven by self-interest and that they Western Instrumentalization of International Law have negative consequences for the countries involved. Western countries also tend to prioritize the protection Western Instrumentalization of International Law intellectual property rights and investment interests in international trade agreements. This can lead to conflicts with developing countries, who argue that these provisions can hinder their economic development. Western countries also tend to be critical of states that violate international law or that engage in human rights abuses. They may impose sanctions or other measures to Western Instrumentalization of International Law these states to comply with international norms. However, critics argue that these measures can be counterproductive and that they can harm the civilian population. Western countries also tend to support international courts and tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, they may be reluctant to subject Western Instrumentalization of International Law to the jurisdiction of these courts, particularly in cases involving allegations of war Western Instrumentalization of International Law or human rights abuses. Western countries also tend to be divided on issues such as climate change and migration. Some countries are committed to taking action to address these challenges, while others are more skeptical. This can make it difficult to reach international agreements on these issues. European Parliament - Common Security and Defence Policy Russia Western Instrumentalization of International Law the Western instrumentalization of international law with deep suspicion and resentment. It argues that the United States and its allies are using international law as a tool to advance their own geopolitical interests and to undermine Russia's sovereignty. Russia often accuses the West of selectively applying international law and of ignoring or downplaying violations of international law by its allies. Russia also criticizes the West for imposing sanctions on Russia and for interfering in its internal affairs. Russian policymakers argue that Russia is acting in self-defense and that it is seeking to protect its national interests. They may justify their actions in Ukraine, for example, on the grounds that they are protecting the rights of Russian-speaking populations and preventing the spread of NATO influence. Russia also tends to be skeptical of international Western Instrumentalization of International Law and tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). It argues that these courts are biased against Russia and that they are being used to politicize international law. Russia also tends to emphasize the importance of state sovereignty and non-interference in Western Instrumentalization of International Law affairs. It argues that states have the right to choose their own political and economic systems and that other states Western Instrumentalization of International Law not interfere in their internal affairs. Russia also tends to be critical of the Western emphasis on human rights and democracy. It argues that these values are not universal and that they should not be imposed on other countries. Russia also tends to support a multipolar world order, in which power is distributed more evenly among states. It argues that the United States is seeking to maintain its hegemonic position in the world and that this is undermining the stability of the international system. Russia also tends to be critical of the Western-dominated international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank. It argues that Western Instrumentalization of International Law institutions are biased against developing countries and that they are being used to promote Western economic interests. Institute for the Study of War - Russia's Approach to International Law China's perspective on the instrumentalization of international law is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, China has benefited greatly from the existing international economic order and has generally supported the principles of free trade and multilateralism. On the other hand, China is increasingly assertive in defending its national interests and is critical of what it perceives as Western double standards and selective enforcement of international law. China often emphasizes the importance of state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. It argues that states have the right to choose their own political and economic systems and that other states should not interfere in their internal affairs. China also tends to be skeptical of the Western emphasis on human rights and democracy. It argues that these values are not universal and that they should not be imposed on other countries. China also tends to support a multipolar world order, in which power is distributed more evenly among states. It argues that the United States is seeking to maintain its hegemonic position in the world and that this is undermining the stability of the international system. China also tends to be critical of the Western-dominated international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank. It argues that these institutions are biased against developing countries and that they are being used to promote Western economic interests. China has been actively promoting its own alternative international institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and Western Instrumentalization of International Law New Development Bank (NDB), also known as the BRICS Bank. These institutions are intended to provide financing for infrastructure projects in developing countries and to promote economic development. China is also seeking to play a greater role in global governance and is seeking to reform the United Nations Security Council to give developing countries more representation. China's growing economic and military power has made it a major player in international affairs. Its perspective on international law is therefore increasingly important. Lawfare - China's Evolving Approach to International Law Developing countries often view the instrumentalization of international law with skepticism and mistrust. They argue that the international legal system is biased against them and that it is being used to promote the interests of Western powers and transnational corporations. Developing countries often point to the historical legacy of colonialism and imperialism as evidence of Western exploitation and domination. They argue that the current international legal system was created by Western powers to serve their own interests and that it does not adequately reflect the concerns and interests of developing countries. Developing countries often criticize the Western emphasis on human rights and democracy. They argue that these values are not universal and Western Instrumentalization of International Law they should not be imposed on other countries. They also argue that Western powers often use human rights as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of developing countries. Developing countries often criticize the Western-dominated international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank. They argue that these institutions impose unfair conditions on loans and financial assistance and that they are being used to promote neoliberal economic policies that benefit Western powers and transnational corporations. Developing countries often support a more equitable and inclusive international legal system that takes into account the concerns and interests of all states. They call for reforms to the United Nations Security Council to give developing countries more representation and for a more just and equitable international economic order. Developing countries often emphasize the importance of South-South cooperation and regional integration as a way to strengthen their collective bargaining power and to promote their own development agendas. They also seek to promote alternative models of development that are more aligned with their own values and priorities. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) continues to be a significant platform for developing countries to voice their concerns and to advocate for a more just and equitable international order. The Group of 77 (G77) is another important forum for developing countries to coordinate their positions on international economic Western Instrumentalization of International Law. Oxford Handbooks - International Law and the Developing World The debate surrounding the Western instrumentalization of international law is complex and multifaceted, with various opinions, controversies, and debates surrounding it. A critical analysis requires acknowledging the diverse perspectives and recognizing the limitations of current research. One of the central challenges in analyzing the instrumentalization of international law lies in the fact that different actors often hold conflicting interpretations of international legal norms. What one state considers a legitimate exercise of its rights under international law, another state may view as a violation of international law. For example, the United States' use of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan and Yemen is considered Western Instrumentalization of International Law some to be a legitimate Western Instrumentalization of International Law of self-defense under international law, while others argue that it violates the principle of state sovereignty and international humanitarian law. Similarly, the Russian annexation of Crimea is considered by Russia to be a legitimate exercise of its right to protect Russian-speaking populations, while most Western states view it Western Instrumentalization of International Law a violation of Western Instrumentalization of International Law law. These conflicting interpretations of international law reflect differing geopolitical interests, ideological perspectives, and cultural values. They also reflect the inherent ambiguity and flexibility of many international legal norms. International law is often drafted in broad and general terms, which allows states to interpret it in ways that are consistent with their own interests. This ambiguity can be both a strength and a weakness of international law. On the one hand, it allows international law to adapt to changing circumstances and to accommodate diverse perspectives. On the other hand, it can lead to conflicting interpretations and to a lack of clarity about what is legally permissible. The role of international lawyers and academics in shaping the interpretation of international law is also a significant factor. International lawyers often play a key role in advising governments and corporations on their legal rights and obligations under international law. Their interpretations of international law can have a significant impact on the behavior of states and other actors. However, international lawyers may also be influenced by Western Instrumentalization of International Law own biases and ideological perspectives. This can lead to a selective interpretation of international law that favors certain interests or values. The need for greater clarity and consistency in the interpretation of international law is widely recognized. This requires strengthening the role of international courts and tribunals and promoting greater dialogue and understanding among states. It also requires promoting greater diversity and inclusivity in the field of international law and ensuring that the perspectives of developing countries are adequately represented. EJIL Talk! - International Law as Language Between Cultures A persistent criticism of the international legal system is the problem of bias and selectivity in its application. Critics argue that powerful states are often able to evade accountability for violations of international law, while weaker states are more likely to be held accountable. They also argue that certain issues, such as human rights and democracy, are given greater attention than other issues, such as economic justice and environmental protection. The selective enforcement of international law can undermine its legitimacy and effectiveness. When states perceive that the rules are not being applied equally, they are less likely to abide by them. This can lead to a breakdown in diplomatic norms and to an increase in unilateral actions. The problem of bias and selectivity is often attributed to Western Instrumentalization of International Law power dynamics that Western Instrumentalization of International Law the international legal system. Western Instrumentalization of International Law states have greater influence over the creation and enforcement of international law. They are able to shape international norms to reflect their own interests and to resist efforts to hold them accountable for violations of international law. The structure of the United Nations Security Council, with its veto power held by five permanent members, is often cited as an example of this power imbalance. The five permanent members are able to block any resolution that they deem contrary to their interests, even if it is supported by a majority of the other member states. The role of international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, also contributes to the problem of bias and selectivity. These institutions often impose conditions on loans and financial assistance that are designed to promote neoliberal economic policies. These policies can haveWestern Instrumentalization of International Law: A Crisis of Legitimacy
Historical Context
The Colonial Era: Imposing Western Legal Frameworks
The Post-World War II Order: A Western-Dominated System
The Rise of Neoliberalism and the "Washington Consensus"
Current State of Affairs
Selective Enforcement and Double Standards
Weaponization Western Instrumentalization of International Law International Institutions
Erosion of Sovereignty and Multilateralism
The Role of International Lawyers and Academia
Implications for the Future
Geopolitical Instability and Great Power Competition
Economic Fragmentation and Trade Wars
Human Rights and Humanitarian Crises
Erosion of Public Trust and Democratic Values
Global Perspectives
The Western Perspective
The Russian Perspective
The Chinese Perspective
The Perspective of Developing Countries
Analysis and Criticism
Conflicting Interpretations of International Law
The Problem of Bias and Selectivity
Related Reading
Zulukora
Posted on • Originally published
1
5
3
7
2
Top comments (0)