International law legitimizes dominance
International law doesn’t constrain power—it launders it. The entire framework exists to transform raw dominance into legitimate authority, giving moral cover to hierarchies that would otherwise be recognized as simple coercion.
──── The consent fiction
International law rests on the fiction of sovereign equality and voluntary consent. Yet the system was designed by victorious powers who wrote the rules to institutionalize their advantages.
The UN Security Council grants permanent members veto power over any law that might constrain their interests. This isn’t equality—it’s formalized inequality dressed as universal governance.
Smaller nations “consent” to international law under duress. Non-compliance triggers sanctions, isolation, or intervention. The choice is submission or destruction.
──── Legal asymmetry mechanics
International law applies selectively based on power relationships:
- Powerful states invoke sovereignty when convenient, international law when advantageous
- Weak states get sovereignty violated while being lectured about international obligations
- Western powers frame their interests as universal values
- Non-Western powers get labeled as threats to the “rules-based order”
The same actions produce different legal consequences depending on who performs them.
──── Jurisdiction shopping
Powerful actors use international law like a legal shopping mall, selecting forums and frameworks that serve their interests:
International Criminal Court jurisdiction applies primarily to African leaders. Western officials remain effectively immune despite documented war crimes. The court becomes a tool of neo-colonial control rather than universal justice.
Trade law gets enforced through economic coercion while human rights law remains aspirational. Property rights receive military protection while labor rights get ignored.
──── The humanitarian intervention scam
“Responsibility to Protect” doctrine provides legal cover for selective intervention:
Libya gets “humanitarian” bombing that destroys the state. Yemen suffers genocide while receiving Western weapons because Saudi Arabia is an ally. Syria faces intervention threats while Palestine endures occupation without legal remedy.
Humanitarian law becomes a weapon rather than protection for the vulnerable.
──── Economic law supremacy
International economic law supersedes all other legal frameworks:
Trade agreements override environmental and labor protections. Investor-state dispute resolution lets corporations sue governments for protecting citizens. Intellectual property law prevents poor countries from producing generic medicines during health crises.
Economic interests get legal armor while social needs remain legally naked.
──── Treaty obligation hierarchy
Not all international law carries equal weight:
Financial obligations get enforced through structural adjustment and economic sanctions. Arms control treaties get abandoned when inconvenient. Climate commitments remain voluntary while debt payments are mandatory.
The legal system prioritizes capital flows over human welfare.
──── Retroactive legitimation
International law provides post-hoc justification for actions already taken:
Iraq invasion was illegal, so the focus shifts to “nation-building” and “democracy promotion.” CIA torture programs were illegal, so legal memos retroactively redefine torture. Surveillance programs were illegal, so laws get changed to make them retroactively legal.
Law follows power rather than constraining it.
──── The rules-based order mythology
“Rules-based international order” means different things for different actors:
For hegemonic powers, it means others must follow rules while they maintain flexibility. For subordinate powers, it means accepting disadvantageous terms as legal obligations. For weak states, it means foreign interference becomes legal intervention.
The order serves those who write the rules.
──── Sovereignty as conditional privilege
Sovereignty gets treated as a privilege that can be revoked rather than an inherent right:
“Failed states” lose sovereignty through legal mechanisms that don’t apply to powerful states with similar problems. “Rogue states” get defined by their relationship to hegemonic powers rather than objective criteria.
Sovereignty becomes conditional on compliance with dominant power interests.
──── International institution capture
International organizations become tools of dominant powers despite universal membership:
World Bank and IMF voting structures give veto power to major shareholders. WTO dispute resolution favors countries with sophisticated legal resources. International courts get judge appointments controlled by powerful states.
Global governance becomes oligarchic control with democratic aesthetics.
──── Exception normalization
International law normalizes exceptions for powerful actors:
Nuclear weapons are illegal except for recognized nuclear powers. Territorial integrity is sacrosanct except when redrawing borders serves Western interests. Regime change is illegal except when targeting unfriendly governments.
Law creates hierarchies disguised as universal principles.
──── Resistance domestication
International law domesticates resistance by channeling it through legal processes:
Anti-colonial movements get trapped in endless legal proceedings while colonization continues. Indigenous rights get acknowledged in principle while land theft proceeds through legal mechanisms. Environmental protection gets defined by corporate-friendly frameworks.
Legal recognition becomes a substitute for actual change.
──── Value relativism as control
International law employs value relativism strategically:
Cultural relativism gets invoked to excuse allies’ human rights violations while being rejected when criticizing enemies. Religious freedom protects allies’ practices while being denied to rivals. Self-determination applies selectively based on geopolitical convenience.
Relativism serves power rather than diversity.
──── The universality deception
International law claims universality while encoding particular values:
Human rights frameworks embed Western individualistic assumptions. Economic law prioritizes market mechanisms over alternative systems. Governance models assume liberal democratic forms are optimal.
Particular interests masquerade as universal values.
──── Legal formalism as mystification
Complex legal procedures obscure simple power relationships:
Sanctions become “lawful countermeasures” rather than economic warfare. Military bases become “security cooperation” rather than occupation. Resource extraction becomes “investment protection” rather than exploitation.
Legalistic language disguises coercive relationships.
──── The compliance double standard
Compliance with international law depends entirely on power relationships:
Weak states face immediate consequences for legal violations. Powerful states ignore adverse rulings without penalty. Allied states receive legal cover for questionable actions. Enemy states get prosecuted for similar behavior.
Law enforcement becomes political tool rather than neutral mechanism.
────────────────────────────────────────
International law doesn’t create justice—it creates the appearance of justice while institutionalizing injustice. The system transforms arbitrary power into legitimate authority through legal aesthetics.
The real function of international law is not to constrain power but to make power seem natural, necessary, and morally justified. It provides the vocabulary for domination to speak the language of rights.
When powerful actors invoke international law, they’re not submitting to external constraint—they’re exercising the privilege to define what law means. When weak actors invoke international law, they’re appealing to authorities who wrote the laws to serve their own interests.
The most sophisticated form of dominance is dominance that convinces its subjects they consented to their own subordination. International law represents the perfection of this technique—a system that makes hierarchy appear horizontal and coercion appear voluntary.
The question isn’t whether international law should exist, but whether legal frameworks can ever constrain power or whether they inevitably serve to legitimate the very power they claim to regulate.