“Precisely because so much blood has been shed on European soil, we strive for a rules-based world order »

Violence against another state is allowed if two conditions are met, according to the Charter of the United Nations: in the case of self-defense following an armed attack and with the approval of the UN Security Council. That kind of rule is something U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth chews over in the morning between bites of his sandwich. According to the self-proclaimed “Secretary of War,” the United States acts “without being deterred by what so-called international institutions claim.” Rules that could paralyze American military action, he called “stupid.” A sign of the times? Are we witnessing the end of the international legal order? It is a question Stefaan Smis has been hearing more frequently from his students lately, after his international law classes. He offers some nuance.

Stefaan Smis: “We focus too much on the rules that are being violated, but in many areas international law still stands firm. If you post a letter to the other side of the world, it arrives perfectly. That can only happen because international agreements exist about it. Areas such as international maritime law, international tax law, or international health law are also well respected. We don’t always stop to think about that.”

Geopolitically, it seems like a different story when we look at all the war violence.
“That’s nothing new under the sun. Great powers have always tended to violate international law when they felt their primary interests were threatened. Think of France in West Africa, Russia in Ukraine, and—albeit with less military violence—China in Asia.”

Does the abduction earlier this year of President Nicolás Maduro by American troops also fit into that tradition?
“That operation in Venezuela was almost a copy-paste of the invasion of Panama at the end of 1989, when the Americans arrested the Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega and transferred him to the U.S. Since the departure of the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers, the U.S. has applied the Monroe Doctrine: it considers Central and South America as a backyard where it calls the shots. Whenever a ‘too left-wing’ regime came to power somewhere, they intervened. In 1973, for example, General Augusto Pinochet carried out a military coup against the democratically elected Chilean president Salvador Allende, with support from the U.S. And in Nicaragua, U.S. President Ronald Reagan gave weapons and money to the Contras, the right-wing rebel groups that opposed the leftist Sandinista government.”

“The actions in Venezuela and Iran fit into the power struggle with China.”

The Clash once showed their solidarity with the triple album Sandinista! At that time the elephant in the room was the Soviet Union; today it is China.
“America makes no secret of the fact that its actions in Venezuela and Iran fit into the power struggle with China. China buys a lot of oil from those countries and has major financial, military, and diplomatic interests there. Wherever it can, America limits China’s access to raw materials, energy, and regional influence. In that context, you should also see the repositioning of the U.S. toward Rwanda and Congo.”

Does that again have to do with access to raw materials?
“Yes. Washington has imposed sanctions on the Rwandan army and four senior officers because, according to them, Rwanda supports the M23 rebels in eastern Congo. The Americans are seeking closer ties with Congo in order to gain control over strategic raw materials such as tin, cobalt, gold, and what are nowadays called rare earths. China has built up an advantage in that area.”

“The new world order was supposed to be based on rules and less on power”

While the big players fight, Europeans stand by somewhat bewildered. Have we been naïve?
“When the Cold War ended, we thought we were entering a new world order, a period in which international law would prevail. That world order would be based on rules and less on power.”

Was that hope only alive in Europe, or elsewhere as well?
“In many parts of the world those ten or twenty years were indeed a period of a certain euphoria. Take Africa. In 2001 the Organization of African Unity transformed into the African Union. It not only had greater economic strength, but could also intervene in crises and focus on peace and human rights.”

Did Trump put a big full stop to that hopeful era with his marker?
“Not only the U.S.—countries like China and Russia also play the game this way. As I said earlier: great powers use their power to get things done. Countries like Belgium don’t have that power. We have no choice but to rely on international cooperation and relations based on law.”

Isn’t the UN Security Council clearly falling short?
“The Security Council is not perfect and is in need of reform. The five permanent members with veto power—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—were the victors of the Second World War. That is completely outdated. Many other countries did not even exist at that time. If we want to give the Security Council more legitimacy and make it more democratic, there should also be permanent representation for Latin America and Africa, as well as for a country like India.”

And what about the notorious veto power?
“Ideally, it should be subject to more conditions or limited in certain situations. The International Court of Justice could then rule if the Security Council exceeds its authority or commits violations of international law. The International Court of Justice is the highest judicial body of the UN. It has the authority to settle disputes between states in a binding way. It can also issue non-binding advisory opinions when various UN bodies or their specialized agencies submit questions about difficult issues.”

Did Europe respond well to the military actions of the U.S. and Israel in Iran?
“In any case, we have not been united. Some countries expressed their support, Spain strongly condemned the attacks, and a large group remains silent or has taken no position. Yet we really do need to take a stance. We must continue to defend international law unequivocally, even if Donald Trump ignores it. That also applies to academics. When we see things going wrong, we must dare to raise the issue through opinion pieces, petitions, and so on. Many international law associations are in fact expressing criticism, including the American Society of International Law.”

“The United States never wages war on its own territory”

Why does Europe have this particular role in the story?
“We are certainly not perfect—in some cases we too are guilty of imperialism. But we have a strong tradition of cooperation and of valuing international rules. Many wars have been fought on European soil, and an immense amount of blood has been shed here. That has had a major influence on the way we think. The United States fights many wars, but never on its own territory. That is a very different story. Just look at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As long as the deaths and the destruction occur in Ukraine, it is not really a problem for the Russians. But when something happens on Russian territory, then questions start to arise.”