In the aftermath of the Second World War, the world’s great powers came together and attempted to solve the problem of peace once and for all. A multitude of international institutions, spearheaded by the United Nations, were to provide the space for nations to resolve their differences openly and without resorting to the kind of violent conflict that had torn the world apart. But eighty years later such an optimistic outlook appears misplaced. Our existing institutions look increasingly powerless in the face of macho states focused primarily on advancing personal interests.
The Problem of Sovereignty
Donald Trump appears to be the exposer-in-chief of the powerlessness of our existing institutions. He has consistently demonstrated how easy it is for nations, especially great powers like the USA, to ignore and even leave them. Funding was withdrawn almost immediately from the World Health Organisation upon his taking office for the second time, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to the White House despite being the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC) — which Trump later imposed sanctions on. David Miliband’s lamentations about the new ‘age of impunity’ have never been more relevant. Indeed, if international institutions cannot fulfil their primary role of restraining great powers, what’s the point of them?
And so we return to the thorny issue of how to enforce international law. In principle, it is a fundamentally good thing that there is a system of rules that states must adhere to. It gives the little guys a chance against nations that hold much more power and stops civilians from being exposed to undue harm. However, practice reveals that these rules can be notoriously difficult to enforce. The US and UK were able to go to war in Iraq in 2003 despite not gaining a second UN resolution to warrant such action. Russia is still at war with Ukraine despite international condemnation.
This disparity between the theoretical and the practical can be explained by a tug-of-war over one concept: sovereignty. Trying to impose international law on sovereign states is like parents trying to tell their children what to do after they leave home. The only way to enforce international law is for states to give up more of their sovereignty to international bodies. However, as we have seen with Brexit, giving up sovereignty is usually not a popular decision.
Is Peacekeeping Still Possible?
So, how do we solve this problem? One way is to boost the UN’s peacekeeping force. But this idea is deeply flawed. For starters, the US is the largest contributor to the UN Peacekeepers. In cases involving US breaches of international law, it is unlikely that a substantial enough force could be dispatched to force corrective action, giving the US and China, by far the two largest contributors, a greater degree of impunity than other nations. Additionally, not all breaches of international law are best solved by military action. Any breaches of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, for example, may not require direct invasion of the perpetrating country to resolve tariff disputes. Unless an institution is prepared to threaten a country’s sovereignty, the best method is one of non-aggression, but that raises the likelihood of ineffectiveness.
There is also another problem arising from America’s shift towards illiberalism. The sand-like structure of the UN and its related bodies has been exposed. When the country that pushed hardest for the rules-based international order and the liberal principles that accompanied it U-turns, where does that leave the rest of the world? Will the great powers in Europe, experiencing a decline in their relative economic and military heft, have enough stomach for the fight? Will China’s neighbours have the strength to stand up and be counted? Even if they have the stomach, which in this new wave of right-wing populism appears less likely, will they have the resources? America’s defence budget far outstrips that of the UK, Japan, Australia and France combined. A reduced ability to advocate firmly for liberal internationalist values largely eradicates the UN’s original purpose. In practice, therefore, a more isolationist America likely means a more isolationist and redundant UN.
But all is not yet lost. Politics tends to be fluid rather than stagnant. A new American administration in four years may see a return to the liberal internationalism that marked America during the Cold War. For now, however, the problem remains: the leaders of the free world must step up to fill the gap left by the United States.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
