International law, otherwise known in its older and nobler description as the law of nations, is often presented as the great civilising compact of mankind. It is spoken of as though it were a sacred moral canopy beneath which all nations, large and small, powerful and weak, rich and poor, are equally sheltered. Its language is lofty, often talking about sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination, civilian protection, humanitarian restraint, peaceful settlement of disputes and the equality of states. But the experience of the modern world teaches a harsher lesson. International law has too often been observed selectively, invoked strategically and violated with impunity where the interests of powerful states are concerned. It has, however, never been entirely meaningless. Without it, the world would be even more anarchic, violent and unstable than it is. But neither has it been the inviolable charter that its most enthusiastic defenders claim. It remains, in practice, a field of contestation between law and power; between principle and expediency; between the rights of peoples and the calculations of states. The ongoing international disorder surrounding Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan and other theatres of conflict has made this contradiction impossible to ignore. In the European context, the language of sovereignty has been rightly and repeatedly invoked. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was condemned as a violation of territorial integrity and the prohibition against the use of force. Ukraine’s borders, independence and political future became matters of global urgency. Western governments declared that no peace could be legitimate unless it respected Ukrainian sovereignty. They demanded security guarantees for Ukraine, guarantees against renewed attack, guarantees for its territorial integrity and guarantees for its right to exist as a secure and independent state. They also vehemently urged the necessity of admitting Ukraine into NATO and extending to it the privileges of membership of the European collective. There is nothing objectionable in principle in these demands. Ukraine, like every other sovereign country, deserves security, peace and freedom from aggression. The problem, however, arises when the same moral language is withheld from another people whose suffering has continued for generations. For while NATO, the European Union and the United States insist that Russia must provide guarantees for Ukraine, they have not shown comparable urgency in demanding guarantees from Israel for the Palestinians. No equivalent Western doctrine has been developed around Palestinian security. No major Western leader has made the protection of Palestinian territory, the end of settlement encroachment, the preservation of Palestinian homes, the inviolability of Palestinian land or the prevention of annexation a condition of peace. Palestinians are constantly advised to negotiate, to be patient, to accept compromise, to accept the fact of the existence of the State of Israel and to restrain their anger. But Israel is rarely subjected to an equally firm demand that it guarantee Palestinian rights. The West speaks endlessly of Israel’s security, as it should. But it speaks far less often, and with far less seriousness, of Palestinian security. Israel’s right to exist is regarded as axiomatic. Palestine’s right to exist is commonly treated as conditional, negotiable, deferred and subject to circumstances beyond Palestinian control. This is the central moral imbalance in the international system. One people’s security becomes a strategic imperative; another people’s security becomes merely a humanitarian concern. One people is entitled to statehood as a matter of principle; another is told to wait until the conditions are suitable. One people’s borders are sacrosanct; another people watches its territory shrink through settlements, checkpoints, military zones, demolitions, evictions and restrictions whose cumulative effect is to make a viable state ever more difficult to realise. The phrase “international community” has played a particularly misleading role in this process. It is often employed as though it refers to the collective conscience of humanity. In reality, it frequently refers to a narrow alignment of Western governments, NATO members and their strategic partners. When that group takes a position, it is described as “international consensus”. When Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Arab world and much of the wider Global South adopt a different position, their views are treated as peripheral, emotional or politically motivated. But the nations of the Global South are not idle spectators in world affairs. They constitute the overwhelming majority of humanity. Their peoples have suffered colonialism, occupation, racial stratification, external intervention and economic subordination. They therefore understand instinctively that international
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
