Muslim World Report

The Power Struggle: Are Strong Nations Above International Law?

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 13, 2025 10:17 AM | 7 min read | 1471 words

TL;DR: International law often prioritizes the interests of powerful nations, leaving weaker states vulnerable. This blog discusses the implications of this dynamic and explores potential reforms to create a more equitable global order.

Power Dynamics in Global Governance: Are Strong Nations Above International Law?

The Situation

In international relations, an unsettling paradox persists: while international law is often celebrated as a cornerstone of global governance, its application frequently mirrors the prevailing power dynamics that shape the geopolitical landscape. A recent dialogue among prominent figures in international relations spotlighted this critical interplay, revealing a troubling consensus characterized by a significant limitation—the participants, predominantly from powerful nations, grappled with the idea of envisioning a world beyond the constraints of existing international law. This limitation exposes a broader disillusionment where the ideals of fairness and justice are relegated to secondary status, overshadowed by the interests of the powerful (Kumm, 2004).

The inherent shortcomings of international law, particularly regarding its enforcement mechanisms, serve primarily the interests of strong states, leaving weaker nations to navigate a labyrinth marked by ineffectiveness. Consider the following:

  • Ukraine as a case study: Despite being a victim of aggression, Ukraine’s ongoing quest for redress through international channels highlights the stark reality of geopolitics.
  • The conflict with Russia has escalated since 2022, serving as a litmus test for the efficacy of international legal mechanisms.
  • Ukraine’s attempts to rally support underscore the limitations of existing structures in the face of powerful transgressors.

This situation raises crucial questions:

  • Are we witnessing the ascendance of the rule of strength over the rule of law?
  • Can the voices of weaker states be amplified within a system that appears systematically biased in favor of the powerful?

This discourse carries profound implications that extend far beyond academic circles. The erosion of effective international law, particularly in the face of aggression, threatens to establish a norm where “might makes right” becomes the prevailing philosophy in our global interactions. The phrase “the weak suffer what they must” resonates alarmingly, encapsulating the grim reality that the current architecture of international law often fails to shield the vulnerable (Walston et al., 2010). As stronger nations breach these laws with impunity, the international community risks fostering a climate in which justice is deemed unattainable, perpetuating instability and conflict. If left unchallenged, the prevailing power dynamics threaten to usher in a more fragmented and volatile global order.

What if the World Abandons International Law?

If the international community collectively decided to abandon or significantly alter the existing legal frameworks, the consequences would be profound:

  • Lawlessness: States would find themselves in a lawless world where sovereignty is merely a reflection of military capability.
  • Escalation of conflicts: Aggressive state actors—emboldened by the absence of accountability—might pursue territorial expansion unrestrained by legal or moral considerations (Mangal, 2024).

In such an environment, smaller states would undoubtedly bear the brunt of increased aggression:

  • Unable to defend themselves adequately or entice international allies to intervene, they would become vulnerable, leading to unprecedented humanitarian crises.
  • The retreat from international law might embolden non-state actors, such as militias and terrorist organizations, to increase their activities, further destabilizing regions already fraught with tension.

Moreover, the erosion of international law would lead to a revival of colonial mindsets. Powerful nations could justify interventions in weaker nations under the guise of self-interest. The notion of “humanitarian intervention” could be distorted as a rationale for direct military actions with little oversight. Such a world would diminish prospects for global peace and entrench divisions, inviting increased nationalism and protectionism, leading us away from ideals of collective progress (Pugh, 2004).

What if Powerful Nations Began to Face Accountability?

Imagine a scenario where powerful nations are held accountable to international law with real consequences for their transgressions. This shift would necessitate a fundamental restructuring of global governance, where international institutions are empowered to impose sanctions or intervene when powerful states violate norms (Canfield et al., 2021). Possible outcomes include:

  • Rejuvenation of multinational coalitions committed to upholding principles of justice and equity.
  • A more equitable distribution of power, allowing nations that have long experienced imperialism to find avenues for redress.

For instance, if Russia faced substantial consequences for its actions in Ukraine, it would deter similar aggressions from other states and provide a template for conflict resolution based on laws rather than brute force (Dahir & Stone, 2003).

However, this increased accountability would also introduce complexities in global diplomacy as powerful nations may resist changes, leading to:

  • Heightened tensions and potential conflict.
  • Backlash manifesting in forms such as cyber warfare, economic sanctions, or even military responses.

Nevertheless, if strong nations recognize the ultimate benefit of constructive global governance, they may realize that sustainable security lies not in hegemony but in partnership and adherence to shared laws.

What if International Law Becomes More Inclusive?

A reimagined international legal framework emphasizing inclusivity could lead to a more cohesive global order. Transforming this framework would require:

  • The integration of perspectives and needs from the Global South to ensure their voices are prioritized (Cornwall & Nyamu-Musembi, 2004).
  • Addressing historical injustices and creating pathways for reconciliation, fostering international cooperation.

As this inclusive approach gains traction, we could witness a paradigm shift in resolving global conflicts:

  • Disputes might be managed through collaborative frameworks that emphasize mutual respect and understanding.
  • Enhanced legitimacy of international institutions and a sense of shared ownership among nations could emerge.

The potential for collaborative mechanisms could lead to unprecedented solutions to complex global issues, such as climate change and migration, where collective action is paramount. Countries that historically felt marginalized could emerge as key players in shaping effective strategies, thus reducing the desire for unilateral actions that often lead to conflict.

However, moving towards an inclusive international law would not be without challenges:

  • Resistance from established powers fearing a dilution of their influence could manifest as obstructionist tactics.
  • Significant logistical hurdles in reconciling diverse interests and governance structures could arise.

Yet, the benefits of a more integrated approach—creating a fairer and more balanced global order—could outweigh the risks inherent in the transition (Krisch & Kingsbury, 2006).

Strategic Maneuvers

To navigate this evolving geopolitical landscape, all players involved—powerful nations, weaker states, and international institutions—must adopt strategic maneuvers designed not only for self-preservation but for sustained global harmony:

For Powerful Nations

  • Embrace accountability: Acknowledge historical roles in shaping international law and work towards reforms that enhance transparency and justice (Stewart, 2005).
  • Support stronger legal institutions: These institutions should enforce international law fairly and equitably.
  • Engage with smaller nations: Integrating their perspectives into policy discussions demonstrates a commitment to more inclusive governance.

For Weaker Nations

  • Unite to amplify voices: Form coalitions to demand accountability from powerful states.
  • Shift from reactive to proactive: Engage actively in international forums and build alliances with civil society organizations advocating for justice.
  • Shape new norms and laws: Ensure that they are not merely passive recipients of international policies (Mbondeyi & Sifuna, 2006).

For International Institutions

  • Reevaluate mandates and capabilities: Engage in self-reflection and address criticisms regarding impartial enforcement.
  • Foster partnerships: Collaborate with nations of all standing and adapt to the realities of a multipolar world.
  • Mediate conflicts equitably: Ensure compliance from all states, irrespective of their power dynamics (Maslach et al., 2001).

The road to reimagining global governance is fraught with challenges but is essential for a world that genuinely values justice and equity. By strategically maneuvering within this complex landscape, all actors can contribute to a more balanced and just international order—one that recognizes the importance of law over might. It is imperative that we collectively foster a vision of international law that is not merely a reflection of current power dynamics but an aspiration for a just and equitable global society.

References

  • Canfield, M., et al. (2021). Global Accountability and Governance: A New Framework. International Relations Journal.
  • Cornwall, A., & Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004). Putting the ‘Rights’ Based Approach to Development into Perspective. Development in Practice.
  • Dahir, A. L., & Stone, E. (2003). International Law’s Role in Conflict Resolution. Global Governance Review.
  • Kumm, M. (2004). The Legitimacy of International Law: A New Approach. International Law Journal.
  • Krisch, N., & Kingsbury, B. (2006). Introduction: Global Governance in the 21st Century. In Global Governance and the UN: An Unfinished Story.
  • Mangal, R. (2024). The Consequences of Abandoning International Law: Risks and Implications. Journal of International Studies.
  • Maslach, C., et al. (2001). Global Institutions and the Challenge of Legitimacy. Review of International Political Economy.
  • Mbondeyi, B., & Sifuna, D. (2006). Coalition Building for Effective Advocacy. African Journal of Political Science.
  • Pugh, J. (2004). After Iraq: The Future of Humanitarian Intervention. World Affairs.
  • Stewart, M. (2005). Reforming International Legal Institutions: The Case for Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review.
  • Walston, M., et al. (2010). The Weak Suffer What They Must: The Case for an International Legal Review. Global Justice Journal.
  • Wood, D. (2008). Accountability in International Law: A New Paradigm. International Law Review.
← Prev Next →