The exceptional immunity that Israel has appreciated for decades has placed international law and its institutions on a knife. Israel has UN workers,, Forbidden UNRWAProhibited to representatives of the UN entry, and has repeatedly insulted the UN and its officials.
Successive Israeli governments and their allies have also used all possible means to exert pressure on the International Criminal Court (ICC) so as not to investigate Israeli crimes – direct threats of physical violence to sanctions and defamation. The attacks on the court only intensified after having made arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.
US President Donald Trump – Israel’s enthusiast – has already signed a decree reintroduced sanctions against CPI staff. This is in addition to other decisions he has made – including the American withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization – which constitute a direct aggression against international multilateralism. On Tuesday, the American president posted his total contempt for international law by declaring his intention to “take over” from Gaza and “own”.
All these developments raise questions about the question of whether the current global system led by the UN is beyond salvation.
Although it was created to “save the following generations of the scourge of war” in 1945, the UN failed to prevent and stop conflicts for decades. Its creation inaugurated an era of “peace for some” – peace for economically advanced states that engage in proxy wars in previously colonized states. So, do we completely abandon the idea of ​​an international legal order?
While we are faced with the imminent danger of climate change and the rapid climbing of militarization, it is clear that we need a system that unites people under the ideal of justice. An international legal order which does not promote powerful has already been proposed by various thinkers.
For example, the Chilean legal scientist Alejandro Alvarez, proposed a “new international law” about 70 years ago. During his mandate (1946-1955) as judge at the International Court of Justice, he argued that European legal tradition, on which was based on a large part of international law, was insufficient to answer legal questions in places like the Americas.
In a series of dissident opinions in cases he deliberated, Alvarez called for a “new international law” which adapted the particular historical moment of decolonization around the world and reflected the interests and positions of decolonized states.
There was a Claire attempt At that time by the States of the South world to claim international law to its advantage. However, economically advanced states have used their influence to eradicate these attempts.
We are now at a historic moment when these efforts must be renewed if the idea of ​​an international legal order is to survive. The action on Palestine can be the driver, because the Gaza genocide is emblematic of more important domination and exploitation patterns that define the current global system.
There are already efforts from the world’s southern states to exclude Israel from the United Nations. A petition signed by 500 legal researchers also called the United Nations General Assembly to overthrow Israel in order to preserve its legitimacy.
In response, the US Congress sent a letter to the UN secretary, Antonio Guterres, threatening to withdraw funding from the United States if such a vote should go ahead. While the power of the American lobby to the UN is no secret, a public threat to withdraw UN funds if it exercises normal functions, is a form of economic coercion which publicly undermines the authority of the ‘Institution and the premises of the International Law.
If the United States decides to reduce the funding of the whole UN, there is a clear response-move the UN outside the United States and the Europe fortress somewhere in the world. The move of the UN headquarters outside New York would considerably reduce costs, promoted world support from the South and would allow its stronger participation. It would remove the dilemma of an international legal institution whose siege is in a state which has proven to be the most coherent aggressor of the crimes that the institution was created to prevent.
At the institutional level, history clearly demonstrates the need to abolish the institutional structures which consecrate imperial power, such as the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and The World Bank. The calls for the abolition of these institutions were directed by the main figures of the decolonization movement such as Thomas Sankara and Amilcar Cabral. As platforms for Global South Voices, the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice must be endowed with more power – this point has been affirmed several times by the Algerian judge Mohammad Bedjaoui. In addition, this can be a rapid moment of realization of international law which is based on historical efforts to create a new international legal order. The Pacific Islands are already stimulating The limits of international law by asking the CIJ of role on the responsibility of the State towards climate change.
International progressive, a coalition of progressive organizations around the world, recently sought to revive certain past efforts by launching a project to develop a framework for a new international economic order. There is power in votes unity, and the inhabitants of the world South world are united in their experience of economic and physical domination and subjugation. For such a change to happen, political tides must align – if only for a brief moment.
The current moment of genocide, neocolonialism, the climate crisis and disgusting impunity imposes the duty to reinvent the status quo. Cynicism is something that we cannot afford. We must start to lay the foundations for a new international legal system that finds virtue in justice rather than power.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.
