Who Makes the Rules? Defending Law Over Power in a Fracturing World

• 

  Anna Möller-Loswick

  Head of Common Security

Almost two months have passed since I attended the Munich Security Conference, but it feels like a year ago. A great deal has happened on the global stage since JD Vance’s speech. After repeating Trump’s message that Europe needs to step up to provide for its own defense, he argued that the biggest threat to Europe came not from Russia or China, but from within European institutions themselves—an assertion that struck at the fundament of the European political establishment.

JD Vance’s speech was at the center of all my conversations in Munich, with many feeling a growing unease over the US’s posture, which they felt added to the growing uncertainty about the future of the transatlantic alliance.

His speech also raised deeper concerns about the durability of the rules-based international order—anchored in international law—that has underpinned global stability since the end of the Second World War.

Security First: At the Expense of International Law?

Despite calls on European leaders to uphold and defend this international order, they have primarily focused on one thing since Munich – namely rearming Europe. European countries are bolstering their defense capabilities with Germany announcing €1 trillion investment in defense and infrastructure, and the EU proposing an €800 billion “ReArm Europe” plan.

With greater responsibility for European security now resting on its shoulders—faced with an aggressive Russia and an unpredictable transatlantic partnership with the United States—it is understandable that Europe feels a renewed sense of urgency to strengthen its defense capabilities. But will this come at the expense of international law? 

We are currently witnessing the beginning of an erosion of international disarmament and arms control regimes unfolding before our eyes. Notably, Finland, Poland and the Baltic states have expressed plans to exit the Ottawa Convention, a key international treaty which bans anti-personnel landmines, and several European countries have openly discussed or signaled openness to either hosting or seeking extended nuclear deterrence.

This development threatens to erode the legitimacy of hard-won international disarmament and arms control regimes, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits nuclear-weapon states from transferring nuclear weapons or control over them to any recipient, and non-nuclear states from receiving, manufacturing or otherwise acquiring such weapons. In the long run, it may cause a chain reaction of withdrawals and the collapse of the global disarmament architecture.

With key norms and principles at risk of being compromised in the name of fear and a sense of urgency, Europe risks not only violating international law but also destabilizing the very international legal order it seeks to defend.

Munich Security Conference 2025. Image: Anna Möller-Loswick

The Ongoing Erosion of the International Order: A Threat to Global Stability

These developments reflect a broader and troubling trend: the ongoing erosion of the multilateral system, grounded in international law rather than the rule of the strongest. With the rise of transactional diplomacy and ad hoc power politics, we are witnessing a shift away from shared norms and institutions that, while imperfect and not always respected, have contributed to a more stable and predictable international order over the past decades.

While defense is important, true and lasting security cannot be built on military strength alone. Preserving the multilateral system is not only about preventing conflict; it is about safeguarding a world where peace is anchored in law, not strength.

A way forward: Reinvesting in the International Legal Order

Below are a few reflections on what is needed to protect the institutions and frameworks that serve as essential building blocks for strengthening, defending, and upholding the international legal framework.

1. Protecting the international courts

Upholding international law requires sustained investment in and strong defense of international legal institutions, particularly the international courts. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are cornerstone institutions for ensuring accountability and reinforcing the rules-based international order. However, they face a range of challenges, including limited resources, the growing complexity of cases and political pressure from powerful states. 

The ICC, in particular, has been the target of overt political attacks. Notably, an executive order issued by President Trump on 6 February 2025 imposed sanctions on the ICC in response to its arrest warrants for Israeli officials , undermining the Court’s independence and legitimacy. While the ICJ has not been subject to such direct measures, it too faces efforts to undermine its authority, especially through non-compliance with its rulings and selective engagement by states. These trends underscore the urgent need to strengthen and protect the international courts from both overt and subtle forms of political interference.

While recent efforts like the joint campaign by the nine-nation Hague Group to protect the international legal order are encouraging, more robust and coordinated diplomatic and financial support is urgently needed. Defending these courts must not be treated as optional or selective; international law cannot be upheld through cherry-picking.

2. Upholding existing international commitments

Upholding existing international commitments is essential to preserving multilateral conventions and agreements, including disarmament frameworks like the NPT. While it takes decades to negotiate, ratify, and build support for such norms, they can unravel alarmingly fast once states begin to compromise or withdraw from them.

3. Addressing double standards

Addressing double standards in the application of international law is essential to preventing further erosion of the international legal system. When states pick and choose whether they should follow the decisions of the international courts based on political convenience or strategic interests, it fuels perceptions of bias and hypocrisy. This not only weakens trust in international institutions but also risks prompting other countries to disengage from the system altogether, questioning its fairness and credibility. To preserve the integrity of international law, all states must commit to applying it consistently, across all contexts.

4. Closing existing gaps in international law

Strengthening the international legal framework also requires ongoing support for efforts to close key accountability gaps. Ongoing initiatives such as efforts to make ecocide a fifth crime in the Rome Statute of the ICC, advance a treaty on crimes against humanity, and harmonize the crime of aggression with other core international crimes in the Rome Statute are critical to ensuring justice in the face of evolving conflicts and geopolitical shifts. These reforms, driven by coalitions of states, civil society, and legal experts, need support in order to reinforce accountability, respond to both new and long-standing threats, and uphold the credibility of international law.

In Defense of the International Legal Order

Despite its imperfections, the post-World War II international system has played a critical role in maintaining relative global stability. The alternative — a world marked by fragmentation, disrespect for international law and unchecked militarisation — poses a far greater risk of conflict and instability. 

As Europe redefines its security posture, it must resist the temptation to sideline international legal commitments in favor of short-term gains. Protecting and upholding the international legal order should be prioritised and regarded as a strategic necessity for lasting peace and global security.