LAW OF THE JUNGLE

Western support for Israel’s right to strike Iran backs up a pattern of “pre-emptive” violence that is further eroding international law and the rules-based order put in place in the wake of World War II, ushering in a “law of the jungle” in which might takes precedence over right – with dire consequences for global stability and co-operation.

Recent events have driven the final nail into the coffin of international law and of what has been referred to as the liberal international order. The message to the world is that if might is on your side, you can break all the rules, trample on international law and all the standards that have been in place since 1945, and there will be absolutely no accountability.

There are massive repercussions for international order and international security, because it means that there isn't a rules-based order at all. It becomes the law of the jungle. And that should be quite concerning to all of us. 

An immediate consequence is likely to be a regional arms race to try to narrow the gap with Israel.

We’re back to Bismarckian power politics, in which might precedes right, and a world governed by nationalist authoritarian leaders in the mould of Putin and Trump. In the present climate the dwindling number of people who talk about respect for international law are regarded as hopeless idealists disconnected from reality. 

Israel’s attack on Iran is a part of a pattern of unlawful ‘anticipatory’ violence against other countries”, along with its recent destruction of Syrian military bases and equipment, despite “the absence of any attack by the new Syrian authorities on Israel.  The risk of abuse of ‘anticipatory’ self-defence is simply too great, and too dangerous, for the world to tolerate. Many countries have hostile relations with other countries. Allowing each country to unilaterally decide when they wish to degrade another country’s military, even when they have not been attacked, is a recipe for global chaos – and for the unjustified deaths of many innocent people. 

Nobody is looking at the legal issue. They don’t look at the circumstances in international law when a pre-emptive strike against a potential enemy is lawful and when it is not.

The combination of a powerful state acting with impunity and a superpower disabling the mechanisms of accountability marks a global inflection point. Other global powers, including Russia and China, are taking this opportunity to move beyond the Western rules-based system. 

The breakdown of the system could have catastrophic consequences for global stability, because there is need for international rules and co-operation to tackle a host of global challenges. There will always be new crises and conflicts, not least of which dealing with the climate emergency. And we need international law and the rules-based order to at least mitigate their consequences.