WEBVTT 00:00:01.360 --> 00:00:04.980 In the early months of his return to power, President 00:00:04.980 --> 00:00:07.440 Donald Trump has made a series of provocative 00:00:07.440 --> 00:00:10.400 declarations that raise serious concerns about 00:00:10.400 --> 00:00:13.900 his approach to international norms. He has floated 00:00:13.900 --> 00:00:16.899 the idea of employing military force to take 00:00:16.899 --> 00:00:20.800 control of Greenland and the Panama Canal, entertained 00:00:20.800 --> 00:00:23.379 the notion of the United States assuming authority 00:00:23.379 --> 00:00:26.300 over Gaza following the removal of its Palestinian 00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:30.109 population, and urged Ukraine to surrender territory 00:00:30.109 --> 00:00:33.549 to Russia as a condition for peace. While such 00:00:33.549 --> 00:00:36.329 statements might initially be dismissed as part 00:00:36.329 --> 00:00:39.310 of Trump's familiar pattern of theoretically 00:00:39.310 --> 00:00:43.289 an incendiary rhetoric, they in fact reflect 00:00:43.289 --> 00:00:46.570 a more deliberate pattern, one that challenges 00:00:46.570 --> 00:00:50.170 a core tenet of international law, the prohibition 00:00:50.170 --> 00:00:53.869 against using or threatening force to resolve 00:00:53.869 --> 00:00:58.619 conflicts between states. Welcome back to Diplomacy 00:00:58.619 --> 00:01:01.500 and Discourse, where we break down the global 00:01:01.500 --> 00:01:04.319 currents shaping our world. I'm your host, AR, 00:01:04.620 --> 00:01:07.680 and today's episode dives into a topic that sits 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:11.439 at the crossroads of history, law, and power. 00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:15.319 The unraveling of post -World War II legal order, 00:01:15.920 --> 00:01:19.340 specifically the prohibition on war and conquest. 00:01:20.200 --> 00:01:22.900 This episode will explore how recent political 00:01:22.900 --> 00:01:26.500 shifts, especially in the United States, threatening 00:01:26.500 --> 00:01:29.379 the fragile system that kept great powers in 00:01:29.379 --> 00:01:32.480 check and preserved peace for nearly eight decades. 00:01:33.359 --> 00:01:35.760 I want to be clear, what you'll hear today is 00:01:35.760 --> 00:01:38.900 a mix of researched facts and personal analysis. 00:01:39.519 --> 00:01:42.359 My goal isn't to preach, but to spark dialogue. 00:01:43.079 --> 00:01:46.500 So if you agree, disagree, or have your own take, 00:01:46.859 --> 00:01:49.140 I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments. 00:01:49.780 --> 00:01:54.329 Let's keep the conversation going. Before the 00:01:54.329 --> 00:01:57.590 20th century, legal theorists believed not only 00:01:57.590 --> 00:02:00.269 that countries could wage war to seize others' 00:02:00.530 --> 00:02:04.430 land and resources, but also that in some circumstances, 00:02:04.909 --> 00:02:08.949 they should. War was considered legal, the primary 00:02:08.949 --> 00:02:12.069 way to enforce national rights and resolve disputes 00:02:12.069 --> 00:02:17.030 between states. That all changed in 1928, when 00:02:17.030 --> 00:02:19.610 nearly every country in the world at the time 00:02:19.610 --> 00:02:23.419 joined the Kellogg -Briand Pact. agreeing that 00:02:23.419 --> 00:02:26.939 wars of aggression should be illegal and territorial 00:02:26.939 --> 00:02:32.300 conquests prohibited. The 1945 UN Charter reaffirmed 00:02:32.300 --> 00:02:35.319 and expanded that commitment, putting at its 00:02:35.319 --> 00:02:40.139 core a prohibition on the, quote, threat or use 00:02:40.139 --> 00:02:44.259 of force against a territorial integrity or political 00:02:44.259 --> 00:02:48.539 independence of another state, end quote. Having 00:02:48.539 --> 00:02:51.500 discovered that merely agreeing to prohibit war 00:02:51.500 --> 00:02:55.539 was not by itself enough, states then went to 00:02:55.539 --> 00:02:58.460 extraordinary lengths to design frameworks and 00:02:58.460 --> 00:03:02.060 institutions to cement this essential rule, leading 00:03:02.060 --> 00:03:05.300 to the establishment of a new legal order that 00:03:05.300 --> 00:03:08.819 elevated economic tools over military might to 00:03:08.819 --> 00:03:14.539 ensure peace. As a result, wars between states 00:03:14.539 --> 00:03:18.330 became far less common. In the 65 years after 00:03:18.330 --> 00:03:21.270 the last settlements of World War II, the amount 00:03:21.270 --> 00:03:23.969 of territory conquered by foreign states each 00:03:23.969 --> 00:03:27.110 year plummeted to less than 6 % of what it had 00:03:27.110 --> 00:03:30.270 been for just over a century before the World 00:03:30.270 --> 00:03:33.909 First Outlawed War. The number of countries tripled 00:03:33.909 --> 00:03:37.789 from 1945 to today, as states no longer feared 00:03:37.789 --> 00:03:40.349 that they would be gobbled up by more powerful 00:03:40.349 --> 00:03:43.650 neighbors. And countries traded more freely with 00:03:43.650 --> 00:03:46.460 one another. knowing that the wealth they accumulated 00:03:46.460 --> 00:03:49.560 was less likely to be plundered by other states. 00:03:50.199 --> 00:03:53.159 The world became more peaceful and prosperous. 00:03:55.319 --> 00:03:57.639 The influence of the prohibition on the use of 00:03:57.639 --> 00:04:00.419 force had already eroded somewhat before Trump 00:04:00.419 --> 00:04:04.139 returned to office. In 2003, the United States 00:04:04.139 --> 00:04:06.979 invaded Iraq, justifying the war by claiming 00:04:06.979 --> 00:04:09.659 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that 00:04:09.659 --> 00:04:13.430 it did not possess. China has spent the last 00:04:13.430 --> 00:04:16.750 decade building military bases in contested areas 00:04:16.750 --> 00:04:20.050 of the South China Sea, and Russia's full -scale 00:04:20.050 --> 00:04:24.089 invasion of Ukraine in 2022 set off the largest 00:04:24.089 --> 00:04:28.009 land war in Europe since World War II. But Trump 00:04:28.009 --> 00:04:30.850 is shredding what is left of the norm against 00:04:30.850 --> 00:04:34.490 using force. Until now, the United States had 00:04:34.490 --> 00:04:38.660 played a critical, if imperfect, role in maintaining 00:04:38.660 --> 00:04:42.079 and defending the post -war legal order. The 00:04:42.079 --> 00:04:44.899 resilience of that order depended less on total 00:04:44.899 --> 00:04:47.899 compliance with international law than on shared 00:04:47.899 --> 00:04:51.639 set of expectations about how other countries 00:04:51.639 --> 00:04:54.779 would behave, even if a country was not itself 00:04:54.779 --> 00:04:57.800 committed to the UN Charter's prohibition on 00:04:57.800 --> 00:05:01.060 the use of force. It knew that violating the 00:05:01.060 --> 00:05:04.100 norm would likely trigger condemnation, sanctions, 00:05:04.500 --> 00:05:07.459 and perhaps even lawful intervention from the 00:05:07.459 --> 00:05:12.540 United States and its allies. The old assumption 00:05:12.540 --> 00:05:15.160 that the United States was served as a guardian 00:05:15.160 --> 00:05:18.220 of the international norm against war and territorial 00:05:18.220 --> 00:05:22.339 conquest has unraveled. Trump is not simply stepping 00:05:22.339 --> 00:05:25.540 back from that historic responsibility. He appears 00:05:25.540 --> 00:05:29.439 to be actively dismantling it. His posture suggests 00:05:29.439 --> 00:05:33.399 a desire to re -legitimize war, or at least the 00:05:33.399 --> 00:05:36.360 credible threat of it. as a routine instrument 00:05:36.360 --> 00:05:39.139 for resolving international disputes and securing 00:05:39.139 --> 00:05:43.040 economic advantage. Around the world, other leaders 00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:45.920 are beginning to adjust to this new, more volatile 00:05:45.920 --> 00:05:49.660 reality. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 00:05:49.660 --> 00:05:52.839 offered tactic support for Trump's comments about 00:05:52.839 --> 00:05:56.199 Gaza. In a gesture seemingly aimed at appeasement, 00:05:56.459 --> 00:05:59.339 Panama agreed to accept U .S. deportation flights 00:05:59.339 --> 00:06:01.980 of non -citizens and approved the stationing 00:06:01.980 --> 00:06:04.639 of American military forces near the Panama Canal. 00:06:05.500 --> 00:06:08.100 Meanwhile, as Trump dangled the prospects of 00:06:08.100 --> 00:06:10.259 permitting Russia to absorb parts of Ukraine, 00:06:10.920 --> 00:06:13.300 Kiev moved to solidify its relationship with 00:06:13.300 --> 00:06:16.639 Washington by granting U .S. access to its valuable 00:06:16.639 --> 00:06:20.060 mineral reserves. Should this unraveling of legal 00:06:20.060 --> 00:06:23.939 norms go unchallenged, the result could be a 00:06:23.939 --> 00:06:27.569 dangerous regression. a return to an era when 00:06:27.569 --> 00:06:31.310 brute force dictated international affairs. The 00:06:31.310 --> 00:06:34.410 ripple effects would be severe, a resurgence 00:06:34.410 --> 00:06:38.670 in global militarization, a spike in wars of 00:06:38.670 --> 00:06:42.389 expansion, the contraction of global trade, and 00:06:42.389 --> 00:06:45.529 a breakdown in the collective cooperation essential 00:06:45.529 --> 00:06:50.889 for tackling common existential challenges. For 00:06:50.889 --> 00:06:54.000 much of history prior to World War I, War was 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:57.759 not seen as a failure of diplomacy or international 00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:01.480 order. It was the recognized mechanism by which 00:07:01.480 --> 00:07:04.600 that order functioned. Without a central authority 00:07:04.600 --> 00:07:07.199 or global court to resolve disputes between sovereign 00:07:07.199 --> 00:07:10.639 nations, states relied on armed conflict as a 00:07:10.639 --> 00:07:13.920 legitimate tool to assert their rights. War, 00:07:14.079 --> 00:07:17.240 in this sense, was governed not by moral outrage, 00:07:17.660 --> 00:07:20.959 but by legal reasoning. Governments routinely 00:07:20.959 --> 00:07:24.800 issued formal war manifestos that outlined the 00:07:24.800 --> 00:07:27.879 justifications for military action, which could 00:07:27.879 --> 00:07:32.019 range from damage to national property, such 00:07:32.019 --> 00:07:36.420 as attacks on ships, to unpaid debts, violations 00:07:36.420 --> 00:07:40.459 of treaties, or self -defense. The use of force, 00:07:40.800 --> 00:07:43.920 when backed by a legal rationale, was not only 00:07:43.920 --> 00:07:48.120 accepted, but expected. As Hugo Grotius, the 00:07:48.120 --> 00:07:51.420 17th century Dutch jurist widely regarded as 00:07:51.420 --> 00:07:54.540 a foundational figure in international law, argued 00:07:54.540 --> 00:07:58.060 in his Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, 00:07:58.540 --> 00:08:02.680 a war was deemed just, quote, if it consists 00:08:02.680 --> 00:08:09.660 in the execution of a right, end quote. Because 00:08:09.660 --> 00:08:12.339 war was traditionally viewed as a legitimate 00:08:12.339 --> 00:08:15.360 way to enforce legal rights, the doctrine of 00:08:15.360 --> 00:08:18.660 conquest held a recognized place within the framework 00:08:18.660 --> 00:08:22.120 of international law. Victorious states could 00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:25.620 lawfully claim territory or resources as compensation 00:08:25.620 --> 00:08:28.500 for the wrongs that justified the war in the 00:08:28.500 --> 00:08:32.559 first place. As Hugo Grotius noted, in securing 00:08:32.559 --> 00:08:36.929 prize or booty, a state acquires, quote, through 00:08:36.929 --> 00:08:42.330 war that which is rightfully its own." Of course, 00:08:42.690 --> 00:08:45.309 in practice, powerful nations often stretched 00:08:45.309 --> 00:08:49.009 or fabricated claims to justify territorial expansion. 00:08:49.850 --> 00:08:52.950 Yet, in a world without a higher legal authority 00:08:52.950 --> 00:08:56.070 to arbitrate such matters, these justifications 00:08:56.070 --> 00:09:00.789 were rarely challenged in any binding way. As 00:09:00.789 --> 00:09:03.750 a result, The international system operated on 00:09:03.750 --> 00:09:06.250 the assumption that conquests were lawful by 00:09:06.250 --> 00:09:10.809 default. In essence, might conferred legitimacy. 00:09:11.870 --> 00:09:14.389 A case in point is the US war against Mexico 00:09:14.389 --> 00:09:18.169 in 1846, which was formally justified on the 00:09:18.169 --> 00:09:21.409 grounds of unpaid Mexican debt. When the dust 00:09:21.409 --> 00:09:24.090 settled, the United States compelled Mexico to 00:09:24.090 --> 00:09:26.950 sign a treaty that transferred over half a million 00:09:26.950 --> 00:09:30.129 square miles of territory. land that would become 00:09:30.129 --> 00:09:33.409 much of the American Southwest, in exchange for 00:09:33.409 --> 00:09:36.710 $15 million and the cancellation of those debts. 00:09:39.250 --> 00:09:42.309 This pattern was by no means an anomaly. Throughout 00:09:42.309 --> 00:09:44.929 the 19th century, powerful nations frequently 00:09:44.929 --> 00:09:48.610 resorted to what became known as gunboat diplomacy, 00:09:49.529 --> 00:09:52.610 the strategic use of military intimidation to 00:09:52.610 --> 00:09:55.590 extract political or economic concessions from 00:09:55.590 --> 00:09:59.629 weaker states. The logic was straightforward. 00:10:00.090 --> 00:10:02.629 If going to war was considered a lawful means 00:10:02.629 --> 00:10:05.169 of defending national rights, then threatening 00:10:05.169 --> 00:10:09.730 war could likewise be deemed legitimate. A striking 00:10:09.730 --> 00:10:14.769 example occurred in early 1854, when U .S. Commodore 00:10:14.769 --> 00:10:17.830 Matthew Perry arrived in Edo Bay, modern -day 00:10:17.830 --> 00:10:21.230 Tokyo, with a fleet of warships, asserting that 00:10:21.230 --> 00:10:23.389 the United States had illegal entitlement to 00:10:23.389 --> 00:10:26.740 trade with Japan. Perry made it unmistakably 00:10:26.740 --> 00:10:30.279 clear that refusal to open Japanese ports would 00:10:30.279 --> 00:10:33.919 be met with force. The implied threat proved 00:10:33.919 --> 00:10:38.220 effective. On March 31st, 1854, the Treaty of 00:10:38.220 --> 00:10:41.100 Kanagawa was signed, granting American vessels 00:10:41.100 --> 00:10:44.000 access to two Japanese ports and marking the 00:10:44.000 --> 00:10:46.419 beginning of Japan's forced integration into 00:10:46.419 --> 00:10:52.090 the global trade system. Because war was historically 00:10:52.090 --> 00:10:54.970 understood as a legitimate tool for upholding 00:10:54.970 --> 00:10:58.009 legal rights, engaging in warfare was considered 00:10:58.009 --> 00:11:01.769 an exercise in law enforcement, not an act of 00:11:01.769 --> 00:11:05.929 criminality. States that waged war were not seen 00:11:05.929 --> 00:11:08.909 as violating international norms, but rather 00:11:08.909 --> 00:11:12.870 asserting them by force. This perspective helps 00:11:12.870 --> 00:11:16.500 explain why After Napoleon Bonaparte's defeat 00:11:16.500 --> 00:11:20.440 in the War of the Sixth Coalition in 1814, the 00:11:20.440 --> 00:11:23.340 allied European powers did not prosecute him 00:11:23.340 --> 00:11:27.740 as a war criminal. Instead, they exiled him to 00:11:27.740 --> 00:11:30.700 the island of Elba, granting him the title of 00:11:30.700 --> 00:11:33.679 emperor and allowing him to govern the island 00:11:33.679 --> 00:11:37.440 with a degree of sovereign authority. Even after 00:11:37.440 --> 00:11:40.620 his dramatic return to France and ultimate defeat 00:11:40.620 --> 00:11:44.360 at Waterloo, Napoleon's fate was exiled once 00:11:44.360 --> 00:11:47.940 again, not as punishment for wrongdoing, but 00:11:47.940 --> 00:11:52.259 as a precautionary move. His removal to the remote 00:11:52.259 --> 00:11:55.440 island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic was 00:11:55.440 --> 00:11:58.259 intended to prevent any further destabilization 00:11:58.259 --> 00:12:01.799 of Europe, not to hold him accountable under 00:12:01.799 --> 00:12:05.220 any concept of international criminal justice. 00:12:07.950 --> 00:12:11.149 In addition to the accepted right of conquest 00:12:11.149 --> 00:12:14.169 and the widespread use of gunboat diplomacy, 00:12:14.889 --> 00:12:17.450 states that engaged in war were shielded from 00:12:17.450 --> 00:12:20.590 criminal accountability. But the legal framework 00:12:20.590 --> 00:12:24.009 of the time also placed firm constraints on neutral 00:12:24.009 --> 00:12:27.289 parties. Countries that remained outside the 00:12:27.289 --> 00:12:30.690 conflict were expected to observe strict neutrality, 00:12:31.110 --> 00:12:34.250 refraining from actions such as imposing sanctions. 00:12:34.490 --> 00:12:37.830 that might hinder either side's ability to pursue 00:12:37.830 --> 00:12:42.169 its perceived legal claims through war. Economic 00:12:42.169 --> 00:12:45.029 penalties against warring states were viewed 00:12:45.029 --> 00:12:49.090 not as legitimate diplomatic tools, but as unlawful 00:12:49.090 --> 00:12:53.350 interference. In fact, if a neutral state breached 00:12:53.350 --> 00:12:57.370 its duty of impartiality, it risksed being considered 00:12:57.370 --> 00:13:00.929 a legitimate target of war itself. Ironically, 00:13:01.389 --> 00:13:04.330 under this legal logic, Territorial conquest 00:13:04.330 --> 00:13:08.149 was permissible, but economic sanctions aimed 00:13:08.149 --> 00:13:11.710 at discouraging war could be seen as provocations 00:13:11.710 --> 00:13:17.250 that justified it. Within this legal framework, 00:13:17.649 --> 00:13:20.470 which prevailed well into the early 20th century, 00:13:21.110 --> 00:13:23.710 military force was a routine tool for powerful 00:13:23.710 --> 00:13:27.029 states to assert their interests, while weaker 00:13:27.029 --> 00:13:31.429 nations were left with few choices, comply or 00:13:31.429 --> 00:13:35.120 face destruction. The absence of legal restrictions 00:13:35.120 --> 00:13:38.220 on conquest meant that borders were constantly 00:13:38.220 --> 00:13:41.240 redrawn through violence and empires expanded 00:13:41.240 --> 00:13:45.679 through brute force, deepening global power imbalances. 00:13:46.259 --> 00:13:49.240 Trade routes were not negotiated but secured 00:13:49.240 --> 00:13:52.080 through the presence of warships and colonial 00:13:52.080 --> 00:13:55.480 territories were treated as spoils of legal disputes, 00:13:56.279 --> 00:13:59.039 transferred through treaties signed under duress 00:13:59.039 --> 00:14:03.379 or after defeat. In such a system, Warfare was 00:14:03.379 --> 00:14:06.460 not an aberration, but a feature of international 00:14:06.460 --> 00:14:10.000 life. And the perpetual threat of conflict cast 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:13.039 a long shadow over global economic development, 00:14:13.700 --> 00:14:16.679 stalling progress and reinforcing inequality. 00:14:19.759 --> 00:14:22.240 World War I introduced a scale of destruction 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:25.620 the world had never seen, fueled by unprecedented 00:14:25.620 --> 00:14:28.720 technologies of warfare and the involvement of 00:14:28.720 --> 00:14:32.679 over 20 nations. The death toll reached an estimated 00:14:32.679 --> 00:14:35.899 20 million, with civilians making up nearly half 00:14:35.899 --> 00:14:39.320 the casualties. As the guns fell silent, the 00:14:39.320 --> 00:14:41.759 international community was left grappling with 00:14:41.759 --> 00:14:45.159 how to prevent such mass devastation from reoccurring. 00:14:45.539 --> 00:14:47.879 One of the first major efforts to address this 00:14:47.879 --> 00:14:50.419 came with the creation of the League of Nations 00:14:50.419 --> 00:14:54.399 in 1920, envisioned as a body that would maintain 00:14:54.399 --> 00:14:58.139 global peace through collective security. Yet 00:14:58.139 --> 00:15:01.000 its potential was severely undermined from the 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:04.600 outset. The US Senate, deeply cautious about 00:15:04.600 --> 00:15:07.600 entangling the country in further European conflicts, 00:15:08.320 --> 00:15:11.659 refused to ratify membership, crippling the League's 00:15:11.659 --> 00:15:14.940 authority and diminishing its capacity to enforce 00:15:14.940 --> 00:15:20.779 its ideals. Amid the global reckoning that followed 00:15:20.779 --> 00:15:23.820 World War I, an ambitious new vision took shape. 00:15:24.179 --> 00:15:28.379 The idea that war itself could be outlawed. In 00:15:28.379 --> 00:15:32.759 late 1927, U .S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg 00:15:32.759 --> 00:15:36.700 advanced this bold proposal to French Prime Minister 00:15:36.700 --> 00:15:41.100 Aristide Bryan, suggesting a formal international 00:15:41.100 --> 00:15:44.139 agreement to renounce war as a tool of statecraft. 00:15:45.080 --> 00:15:49.220 Remarkably, the idea gained rapid traction. By 00:15:49.220 --> 00:15:53.659 1928, the resulting Kellogg -Bryan pact officially 00:15:53.659 --> 00:15:56.679 known as the General Treaty for Renunciation 00:15:56.679 --> 00:16:00.379 of War as an instrument of national policy, had 00:16:00.379 --> 00:16:03.539 been signed by 58 nations, encompassing the vast 00:16:03.539 --> 00:16:06.200 majority of the global community at the time. 00:16:07.080 --> 00:16:09.759 The treaty marked a watershed moment in international 00:16:09.759 --> 00:16:12.980 law, declaring that states would no longer resort 00:16:12.980 --> 00:16:16.480 to war to resolve their disputes. Signatories 00:16:16.480 --> 00:16:20.870 pledged to condemn recourse to war for the solution 00:16:20.870 --> 00:16:24.389 of international controversies," end quote, and 00:16:24.389 --> 00:16:27.789 to resolve their differences by, quote, passive 00:16:27.789 --> 00:16:31.690 means, end quote, signaling a collective commitment 00:16:31.690 --> 00:16:38.370 to a new era of diplomacy over violence. Although 00:16:38.370 --> 00:16:41.490 the Kellogg -Briand Pact is often dismissed as 00:16:41.490 --> 00:16:44.409 an idealistic failure, especially in light of 00:16:44.409 --> 00:16:47.590 its inability to prevent World War II, it quietly 00:16:47.590 --> 00:16:50.190 laid the groundwork for a transformative shift 00:16:50.190 --> 00:16:53.470 in international law. Critics have long viewed 00:16:53.470 --> 00:16:57.370 the pact as toothless, but its deeper impact 00:16:57.370 --> 00:17:00.950 was more profound than even its creators likely 00:17:00.950 --> 00:17:04.829 anticipated. By formally declaring war illegal, 00:17:05.410 --> 00:17:08.289 the treaty forced a fundamental rethinking of 00:17:08.289 --> 00:17:11.490 nearly every aspect of international legal practice. 00:17:12.009 --> 00:17:16.619 When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, U .S. Secretary 00:17:16.619 --> 00:17:19.960 of State Henry Stimson faced the challenge of 00:17:19.960 --> 00:17:23.140 responding in a way that upheld the PAC's principles. 00:17:24.079 --> 00:17:27.079 After months of deliberation, he announced that 00:17:27.079 --> 00:17:29.880 the United States would not recognize territorial 00:17:29.880 --> 00:17:34.240 acquisitions made through aggression. This stance, 00:17:34.420 --> 00:17:38.019 which became known as the Stimson Doctrine, marked 00:17:38.019 --> 00:17:41.920 a pivotal moment. It signaled the end of the 00:17:41.920 --> 00:17:46.299 age in which conquest was legally accepted. Under 00:17:46.299 --> 00:17:49.799 this emerging norm, even if Japan coerced China 00:17:49.799 --> 00:17:52.339 into formalizing its gains through a treaty, 00:17:53.059 --> 00:17:56.259 such agreements would carry no legal legitimacy. 00:17:57.339 --> 00:18:01.259 The message was clear. Military might would no 00:18:01.259 --> 00:18:05.140 longer validate legal claims, and gunboat diplomacy 00:18:05.140 --> 00:18:08.420 would no longer produce binding obligations. 00:18:11.240 --> 00:18:15.559 While both Germany and Japan, despite being signatories 00:18:15.559 --> 00:18:18.880 to the Kellogg -Briant Pact, blatantly violated 00:18:18.880 --> 00:18:22.160 its principles by igniting World War II, they 00:18:22.160 --> 00:18:24.660 ultimately bore the weight of its legal and moral 00:18:24.660 --> 00:18:28.660 consequences. The territories they seized through 00:18:28.660 --> 00:18:32.160 military aggression were stripped away, and the 00:18:32.160 --> 00:18:34.359 highest ranking officials were brought before 00:18:34.359 --> 00:18:37.619 international tribunals to answer for their actions. 00:18:38.240 --> 00:18:41.599 At the Nuremberg trials, The very first charge 00:18:41.599 --> 00:18:45.019 leveled against the Nazi leadership was the deliberate 00:18:45.019 --> 00:18:48.420 planning and execution of an aggressive war, 00:18:49.059 --> 00:18:52.160 a direct violation of the Kellogg -Briant pact 00:18:52.160 --> 00:18:56.839 of 1928. The indictment made clear that their 00:18:56.839 --> 00:18:59.859 war making was not merely a geopolitical failure, 00:19:00.500 --> 00:19:03.559 but a prosecutable offense under emerging norms 00:19:03.559 --> 00:19:09.039 of international law. The principles enshrined 00:19:09.039 --> 00:19:12.359 in the Kellogg -Briand Pact reshaped not only 00:19:12.359 --> 00:19:15.339 the legality of war itself, but also the broader 00:19:15.339 --> 00:19:18.680 framework of international law. One key shift 00:19:18.680 --> 00:19:22.400 emerged in how neutrality was understood. In 00:19:22.400 --> 00:19:26.799 1941, U .S. Attorney General Robert Jackson defended 00:19:26.799 --> 00:19:30.119 the Lend -Lease Act, which allowed the United 00:19:30.119 --> 00:19:33.059 States to supply arms to nations resisting Nazi 00:19:33.059 --> 00:19:35.880 Germany without officially entering the war. 00:19:36.089 --> 00:19:39.710 by arguing that traditional neutrality laws had 00:19:39.710 --> 00:19:44.269 evolved. Since signatory states had pledged to 00:19:44.269 --> 00:19:47.490 renounce war as a tool of national policy, Jackson 00:19:47.490 --> 00:19:51.250 contended, a country that violated this agreement 00:19:51.250 --> 00:19:54.390 forfeited any claim to equal treatment under 00:19:54.390 --> 00:19:58.009 neutrality laws. As he put it, an aggressive 00:19:58.009 --> 00:20:01.529 state, quote, acquires no right to equality of 00:20:01.529 --> 00:20:04.859 treatment from other states, end quote. In this 00:20:04.859 --> 00:20:08.559 view, neutrality no longer required strict impartiality. 00:20:08.940 --> 00:20:11.700 Rather, it permitted states to support victims 00:20:11.700 --> 00:20:14.339 of aggression without breaching legal norms. 00:20:17.160 --> 00:20:19.680 In essence, the transformation of international 00:20:19.680 --> 00:20:22.859 norms began with the signing of the Kellogg -Briant 00:20:22.859 --> 00:20:27.740 Pact in 1928. But ideals alone proved insufficient. 00:20:28.359 --> 00:20:31.220 Global leaders soon recognized that lasting change 00:20:31.220 --> 00:20:34.539 required more than declarations. It demanded 00:20:34.539 --> 00:20:38.319 enforceable rules and durable institutions. In 00:20:38.319 --> 00:20:41.220 the aftermath of World War II, the Allied powers 00:20:41.220 --> 00:20:44.680 took concrete steps to solidify this shift by 00:20:44.680 --> 00:20:48.119 establishing the United Nations, which enshrined 00:20:48.119 --> 00:20:50.880 the rejection of aggressive war into binding 00:20:50.880 --> 00:20:55.019 international law. The UN Charter explicitly 00:20:55.019 --> 00:21:03.079 forbids, quote, or political independence of 00:21:03.079 --> 00:21:08.819 any state," turning the pact's moral vision into 00:21:08.819 --> 00:21:12.579 legal obligation. Treaties obtained through coercion 00:21:12.579 --> 00:21:15.859 were now deemed invalid. The traditional requirement 00:21:15.859 --> 00:21:19.279 of neutrality gave way to a more principled stance 00:21:19.279 --> 00:21:22.819 against aggression, and individuals who initiated 00:21:22.819 --> 00:21:26.359 wars of conquest could be prosecuted as criminals 00:21:26.359 --> 00:21:31.640 under international law. The legal revolution 00:21:31.640 --> 00:21:34.779 that followed World War II, spearheaded in large 00:21:34.779 --> 00:21:37.700 part by the United States, stands as one of the 00:21:37.700 --> 00:21:40.480 most significant transformations in the history 00:21:40.480 --> 00:21:43.740 of international relations. In the nearly 80 00:21:43.740 --> 00:21:46.779 years since the UN Charter came into force, the 00:21:46.779 --> 00:21:49.519 landscape of global conflict has fundamentally 00:21:49.519 --> 00:21:53.059 changed. Interstate wars and acts of territorial 00:21:53.059 --> 00:21:56.099 conquest, once common features of international 00:21:56.099 --> 00:22:00.119 politics, have become strikingly rare. Since 00:22:00.119 --> 00:22:03.799 1945, the world's great powers have avoided direct 00:22:03.799 --> 00:22:06.819 military confrontation with one another, and 00:22:06.819 --> 00:22:09.980 no member state of the United Nations has been 00:22:09.980 --> 00:22:14.259 permanently erased through conquest. While violence 00:22:14.259 --> 00:22:17.740 and conflict still persist, their frequency and 00:22:17.740 --> 00:22:21.579 scale have diminished dramatically. To put the 00:22:21.579 --> 00:22:24.880 shift into perspective, In the hundred years 00:22:24.880 --> 00:22:29.200 leading up to World War II, more than 150 territorial 00:22:29.200 --> 00:22:32.740 conquests succeeded. In the decades that followed, 00:22:33.359 --> 00:22:38.180 that number has fallen to fewer than 10. While 00:22:38.180 --> 00:22:40.980 some scholars attribute the post -World War II 00:22:40.980 --> 00:22:44.880 peace to factors like nuclear deterrence, democratic 00:22:44.880 --> 00:22:48.019 expansion, or the integration of global markets, 00:22:48.599 --> 00:22:51.440 these explanations often overlook a critical 00:22:51.440 --> 00:22:56.980 development. the formal outlawing of war. The 00:22:56.980 --> 00:22:59.539 shift in legal norms fundamentally altered the 00:22:59.539 --> 00:23:02.960 calculus of international conduct. A vivid example 00:23:02.960 --> 00:23:06.599 came in August 1990 when Iraqi President Saddam 00:23:06.599 --> 00:23:09.759 Hussein invaded Kuwait in direct violation of 00:23:09.759 --> 00:23:14.180 UN Charter's prohibition on aggression. In essence, 00:23:14.599 --> 00:23:17.940 the UN Security Council swiftly demanded Iraq's 00:23:17.940 --> 00:23:20.579 withdrawal and, when that demand was ignored, 00:23:20.839 --> 00:23:25.380 authorize the use of all necessary means to restore 00:23:25.380 --> 00:23:30.420 peace and security. The United States led a multinational 00:23:30.420 --> 00:23:33.259 coalition that forcibly removed Iraqi forces 00:23:33.259 --> 00:23:36.539 from Kuwaiti territory. This episode sent a clear 00:23:36.539 --> 00:23:40.000 message. Breaches of the legal ban on force would 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:42.980 not be ignored. The prohibition mattered not 00:23:42.980 --> 00:23:45.319 only because states believed they should follow 00:23:45.319 --> 00:23:48.500 it, but because it redefined their expectations. 00:23:48.880 --> 00:23:51.640 particularly regarding how major powers like 00:23:51.640 --> 00:23:55.599 the United States would react. The law, in effect, 00:23:56.119 --> 00:23:58.839 changed the cost -benefit analysis of military 00:23:58.839 --> 00:24:05.400 aggression. The ban on territorial conquest fundamentally 00:24:05.400 --> 00:24:08.339 transformed the way nations pursued wealth and 00:24:08.339 --> 00:24:11.980 power. Prior to its establishment, a state's 00:24:11.980 --> 00:24:14.880 prosperity was often tied to its ability to seize 00:24:14.880 --> 00:24:19.069 land, extract resources, or impose concessions 00:24:19.069 --> 00:24:23.309 through force. War was not only a tool of statecraft. 00:24:23.849 --> 00:24:27.670 It was a recognized path to economic gain. The 00:24:27.670 --> 00:24:30.930 post -war legal order, by stripping away the 00:24:30.930 --> 00:24:34.910 legitimacy of conquest, closed that avenue. In 00:24:34.910 --> 00:24:37.930 its place, it incentivized peaceful methods of 00:24:37.930 --> 00:24:40.630 growth, with international trade becoming the 00:24:40.630 --> 00:24:44.420 primary engine of national prosperity. As military 00:24:44.420 --> 00:24:47.339 aggression lost its legal and political utility, 00:24:47.940 --> 00:24:50.680 states increasingly turned to economic cooperation, 00:24:51.259 --> 00:24:53.980 competitive markets, and the unhindered movement 00:24:53.980 --> 00:24:57.500 of goods and capital. The prohibition on war 00:24:57.500 --> 00:25:00.099 and the rise of global trade were not parallel 00:25:00.099 --> 00:25:03.740 trends. They were deeply interconnected, reshaping 00:25:03.740 --> 00:25:06.359 the incentives that had long governed international 00:25:06.359 --> 00:25:11.740 behavior. As the legitimacy of gunboat diplomacy 00:25:11.740 --> 00:25:15.039 faded, Great powers had to adapt new strategies 00:25:15.039 --> 00:25:18.480 to assert influence, replacing coercion through 00:25:18.480 --> 00:25:21.180 force with what came to be known as checkbook 00:25:21.180 --> 00:25:26.140 diplomacy. In this new era, economic and diplomatic 00:25:26.140 --> 00:25:29.940 pressure, not military intervention, became the 00:25:29.940 --> 00:25:32.640 principal tool for enforcing international norms. 00:25:33.960 --> 00:25:36.660 As global economic interdependence deepened, 00:25:37.039 --> 00:25:39.799 states developed increasingly sophisticated methods 00:25:39.799 --> 00:25:43.640 of outcasting denying violators access to the 00:25:43.640 --> 00:25:46.980 benefits of international collaboration. Trade 00:25:46.980 --> 00:25:50.480 sanctions, in particular, emerged as a powerful 00:25:50.480 --> 00:25:53.380 mechanism to penalize actions ranging from human 00:25:53.380 --> 00:25:56.940 rights abuses and support for terrorism to unlawful 00:25:56.940 --> 00:26:00.480 wars of aggression. This shift was underpinned 00:26:00.480 --> 00:26:03.279 by a dramatic transformation in the global economy. 00:26:03.960 --> 00:26:08.119 In 1945, trade represented just about 10 % of 00:26:08.119 --> 00:26:13.819 the world's GDP. By 2023, It accounted for 58%. 00:26:13.819 --> 00:26:16.900 Alongside this, tens of thousands of international 00:26:16.900 --> 00:26:20.900 institutions were formed, and more than 250 ,000 00:26:20.900 --> 00:26:23.259 treaties were drafted to govern this expanding 00:26:23.259 --> 00:26:27.440 web of interdependence. In such a world, exclusion 00:26:27.440 --> 00:26:30.099 from international cooperation became not only 00:26:30.099 --> 00:26:33.539 a diplomatic setback, but a costly economic burden 00:26:33.539 --> 00:26:39.269 few nations could afford to bear. The United 00:26:39.269 --> 00:26:42.349 States, with its dominant share of global GDP 00:26:42.349 --> 00:26:46.029 and unique position of the US dollar as the world's 00:26:46.029 --> 00:26:48.849 reserve currency, acquired exceptional leverage 00:26:48.849 --> 00:26:51.470 in shaping and enforcing the post -war legal 00:26:51.470 --> 00:26:55.210 order. For most nations, maintaining favorable 00:26:55.210 --> 00:26:57.690 relations with Washington was not just strategic, 00:26:58.170 --> 00:27:01.710 it was economically essential. While the US role 00:27:01.710 --> 00:27:05.160 in this system was far from flawless, evidenced 00:27:05.160 --> 00:27:08.099 by controversial military interventions such 00:27:08.099 --> 00:27:11.400 as the Vietnam War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 00:27:11.980 --> 00:27:14.440 and prolonged counter -terrorism operations in 00:27:14.440 --> 00:27:16.960 the Middle East, many of which were justified 00:27:16.960 --> 00:27:19.859 through expansive interpretations of self -defense, 00:27:20.619 --> 00:27:23.660 it nonetheless adhered to a crucial boundary. 00:27:24.079 --> 00:27:28.640 It did not pursue territorial conquest. More 00:27:28.640 --> 00:27:31.680 importantly, the United States often acted as 00:27:31.680 --> 00:27:34.799 a guarantor of the international order. committing 00:27:34.799 --> 00:27:38.259 to defend allies under collective security agreements 00:27:38.259 --> 00:27:42.180 such as NATO, the Rio Treaty, and defense pacts 00:27:42.180 --> 00:27:45.619 with nations like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, 00:27:46.160 --> 00:27:51.359 Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand. Its response 00:27:51.359 --> 00:27:55.119 to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 made a powerful 00:27:55.119 --> 00:27:58.799 statement. Even absent from formal treaty obligations, 00:27:59.359 --> 00:28:01.799 attempts at aggressive conquest would be met 00:28:01.799 --> 00:28:04.980 with forceful opposition. Although the system 00:28:04.980 --> 00:28:08.059 was imperfect, it functioned well enough to deter 00:28:08.059 --> 00:28:10.839 major wars between powerful states and to preserve 00:28:10.839 --> 00:28:14.880 the integrity of a global order rooted in interdependence. 00:28:15.759 --> 00:28:18.240 Within this environment, states could focus on 00:28:18.240 --> 00:28:20.400 building their economies without the looming 00:28:20.400 --> 00:28:23.440 threat of conquest or being strong -armed into 00:28:23.440 --> 00:28:25.940 surrendering wealth through unequal treaties. 00:28:28.599 --> 00:28:31.839 That fragile order may now be on the verge of 00:28:31.839 --> 00:28:35.339 unraveling. Past US administrations have rightly 00:28:35.339 --> 00:28:38.339 faced criticism for inconsistencies and double 00:28:38.339 --> 00:28:41.119 standards, but what sets the Trump administration 00:28:41.119 --> 00:28:44.000 apart is its apparent readiness to abandon the 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:46.920 foundational principle that war should not be 00:28:46.920 --> 00:28:51.400 used to resolve international disputes. The notion 00:28:51.400 --> 00:28:53.819 that the United States could forcibly acquire 00:28:53.819 --> 00:28:56.380 territories like Canada, Greenland, or the Panama 00:28:56.380 --> 00:28:59.579 Canal, or assert control over Gaza, is not a 00:28:59.579 --> 00:29:02.660 novel form of hard -nosed realism, or transactional 00:29:02.660 --> 00:29:06.400 diplomacy. It is a revival of an older, more 00:29:06.400 --> 00:29:10.019 dangerous logic. That power alone justifies action. 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:14.019 In both rhetoric and policy, Trump has revived 00:29:14.019 --> 00:29:17.859 the pre -Khalaq -Briand worldview, one in which 00:29:17.859 --> 00:29:20.599 the threat or use of force is once again treated 00:29:20.599 --> 00:29:23.440 as a legitimate tool for negotiating outcomes 00:29:23.440 --> 00:29:27.900 and extracting concessions. It marks a regression. 00:29:28.140 --> 00:29:30.859 Not just from the norms of post -war diplomacy, 00:29:31.460 --> 00:29:34.079 but from the legal and moral evolution that followed 00:29:34.079 --> 00:29:36.960 the catastrophic lessons of the 20th century. 00:29:39.839 --> 00:29:42.279 Beyond threatening territorial seizures by the 00:29:42.279 --> 00:29:44.640 United States, the Trump administration also 00:29:44.640 --> 00:29:47.440 appears ready to abandon the broader international 00:29:47.440 --> 00:29:50.279 principle that states have a right not to be 00:29:50.279 --> 00:29:54.619 conquered. In a striking episode, Trump reportedly 00:29:54.619 --> 00:29:57.599 told Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky that 00:29:57.599 --> 00:30:00.559 if he did not entertain a U .S. brokered peace 00:30:00.559 --> 00:30:03.819 deal, one that, according to the Financial Times, 00:30:04.339 --> 00:30:06.900 might require Ukraine to relinquish up to 20 00:30:06.900 --> 00:30:10.740 % of its territory to Russia, he risked, quote, 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:14.980 losing his whole country, end quote. This posture 00:30:14.980 --> 00:30:17.700 signals a willingness not only to ignore acts 00:30:17.700 --> 00:30:20.339 of aggression, but to preserve vulnerable states 00:30:20.339 --> 00:30:23.980 into accepting them. Trump has also revived gunboat 00:30:23.980 --> 00:30:27.079 diplomacy by leveraging threats of military action 00:30:27.079 --> 00:30:30.519 to force other nations into deals favorable to 00:30:30.519 --> 00:30:33.440 the United States as seen in negotiations with 00:30:33.440 --> 00:30:37.859 Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, his erratic use 00:30:37.859 --> 00:30:41.460 of tariffs, such as the imposition of 25 % duties 00:30:41.460 --> 00:30:44.640 on key trading partners without clear legal justification, 00:30:45.400 --> 00:30:47.660 further undermines the credibility of economic 00:30:47.660 --> 00:30:51.460 sanctions as tools of lawful enforcement. Sanctions 00:30:51.460 --> 00:30:54.240 derive their power from being used selectively 00:30:54.240 --> 00:30:57.299 and in response to clear violations of international 00:30:57.299 --> 00:31:01.619 norms. When wielded impulsively or punitively 00:31:01.619 --> 00:31:04.589 outside the legal framework, As Trump's trade 00:31:04.589 --> 00:31:07.490 policies often were, they weakened the legitimacy 00:31:07.490 --> 00:31:10.230 of economic pressure as a response to genuine 00:31:10.230 --> 00:31:16.109 misconduct. Trump's decision to authorize sanctions 00:31:16.109 --> 00:31:18.430 against officials of the International Criminal 00:31:18.430 --> 00:31:21.730 Court marked a striking reversal in the use of 00:31:21.730 --> 00:31:24.730 sanctions as a legal tool. Rather than reinforcing 00:31:24.730 --> 00:31:27.769 international norms, the move weaponized sanctions 00:31:27.769 --> 00:31:31.470 against those tasked with upholding them, transforming 00:31:31.470 --> 00:31:34.869 an instrument of justice into one of intimidation. 00:31:36.329 --> 00:31:39.690 At a broader level, his isolationist economic 00:31:39.690 --> 00:31:42.750 agenda undermines the very interdependence that 00:31:42.750 --> 00:31:45.650 allows states to hold violators accountable through 00:31:45.650 --> 00:31:50.130 nonviolent means. By weakening global ties, Trump 00:31:50.130 --> 00:31:53.410 reduces the effectiveness of outcasting, the 00:31:53.410 --> 00:31:56.250 practice of excluding road actors from the benefits 00:31:56.250 --> 00:31:59.200 of international cooperation, thereby leaving 00:31:59.200 --> 00:32:01.940 states with fewer peaceful options to respond 00:32:01.940 --> 00:32:05.619 to breaches of international law. In this environment, 00:32:06.140 --> 00:32:09.000 the risk grows that countries may turn back to 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:12.839 force or simply tolerate violations without consequences. 00:32:16.119 --> 00:32:19.640 Though often dismissed as erratic or improvisational 00:32:19.950 --> 00:32:23.230 Trump's rhetorical outburst and policy maneuvers 00:32:23.230 --> 00:32:26.230 reflect a deliberate and dangerous challenge 00:32:26.230 --> 00:32:28.950 to the legal architecture built after World War 00:32:28.950 --> 00:32:32.250 II. This disruption is particularly alarming 00:32:32.250 --> 00:32:34.650 given that it originates from the very nation 00:32:34.650 --> 00:32:37.829 that helped construct and for decades sustained 00:32:37.829 --> 00:32:41.109 that order. While some of his proposals may never 00:32:41.109 --> 00:32:44.589 be enacted due to judicial checks or political 00:32:44.589 --> 00:32:48.349 resistance, the damage lies in the signaling 00:32:48.349 --> 00:32:53.180 itself. The mere threat of dismantling long -standing 00:32:53.180 --> 00:32:56.759 norms erodes the mutual expectations that have 00:32:56.759 --> 00:32:59.740 restrained aggression and preserved international 00:32:59.740 --> 00:33:04.759 stability. When norms are degraded by the world's 00:33:04.759 --> 00:33:07.680 most powerful actor, it sends a message that 00:33:07.680 --> 00:33:11.359 the rules are negotiable, weakening their deterrent 00:33:11.359 --> 00:33:17.599 effect for all. Those shared expectations that 00:33:17.599 --> 00:33:21.099 states will generally act as if legal rules matter, 00:33:21.559 --> 00:33:24.079 are what give the international system coherence 00:33:24.079 --> 00:33:27.140 and predictability. They enable weaker nations 00:33:27.140 --> 00:33:30.500 to make strategic decisions without fearing predation, 00:33:30.960 --> 00:33:33.720 encouraging cross -border investment and cooperation, 00:33:34.339 --> 00:33:37.359 and create space for collective response to lawbreaking. 00:33:38.440 --> 00:33:41.720 If the United States, with its unparalleled influence, 00:33:42.140 --> 00:33:44.619 begins to act as though these norms no longer 00:33:44.619 --> 00:33:48.160 apply, others will likely follow. The resulting 00:33:48.160 --> 00:33:51.220 unraveling will not be sudden, but it will be 00:33:51.220 --> 00:33:54.019 steady, chipping away at the foundation of the 00:33:54.019 --> 00:33:56.940 global legal order until it can no longer function. 00:33:57.720 --> 00:34:01.359 What remains could be a world where power, not 00:34:01.359 --> 00:34:04.619 principle, once again defines the limits of international 00:34:04.619 --> 00:34:10.260 behavior. If the norm prohibiting the use of 00:34:10.260 --> 00:34:13.070 force continues to erode, The world may revert 00:34:13.070 --> 00:34:16.309 to a system dominated by great power spheres 00:34:16.309 --> 00:34:19.570 of influence, one shaped less by law and more 00:34:19.570 --> 00:34:23.010 by coercion. Leaders like Vladimir Putin, Donald 00:34:23.010 --> 00:34:26.489 Trump and Xi Jinping could tactically agree to 00:34:26.489 --> 00:34:28.889 divide the globe into regional zones of control, 00:34:29.489 --> 00:34:31.969 where each would exert unchecked authority over 00:34:31.969 --> 00:34:35.510 weaker neighbors. Within these spheres, smaller 00:34:35.510 --> 00:34:38.070 states could face relentless pressure to offer 00:34:38.070 --> 00:34:41.260 concessions in exchange for security. transforming 00:34:41.260 --> 00:34:43.880 international relations into a transactional 00:34:43.880 --> 00:34:47.420 form of subjugation. While such an arrangement 00:34:47.420 --> 00:34:50.320 might produce short -term stability, it would 00:34:50.320 --> 00:34:52.500 come at the cost of freedom and sovereignty. 00:34:53.840 --> 00:34:56.880 More likely, however, the collapse of the prohibition 00:34:56.880 --> 00:35:00.119 on war would unleash a resurgence of frequent 00:35:00.119 --> 00:35:03.480 and localized conflicts, the very kind of instability 00:35:03.480 --> 00:35:06.300 that the modern legal order was designed to prevent. 00:35:07.599 --> 00:35:10.880 In Thucydides' enduring phrase, It would mark 00:35:10.880 --> 00:35:14.320 the return of a world where, quote, the strong 00:35:14.320 --> 00:35:17.239 do what they can and the weak suffer what they 00:35:17.239 --> 00:35:23.199 must. There is, however, still a path forward, 00:35:23.519 --> 00:35:26.679 but it demands bold leadership and swift coordination. 00:35:27.070 --> 00:35:31.269 In 2022, 142 countries stood alongside the United 00:35:31.269 --> 00:35:34.750 States in endorsing a UN General Assembly resolution 00:35:34.750 --> 00:35:38.210 denouncing Russia's attempted annexation of Ukrainian 00:35:38.210 --> 00:35:42.409 territory as illegal. This overwhelming support 00:35:42.409 --> 00:35:45.070 reveals a latent global consensus that could 00:35:45.070 --> 00:35:47.969 be harnessed to reaffirm the ban on conquest, 00:35:48.610 --> 00:35:51.050 this time without depending on the United States 00:35:51.050 --> 00:35:54.719 as the central enforcer. Encouragingly, Europe 00:35:54.719 --> 00:35:57.460 has begun to fill the vacuum left by Washington's 00:35:57.460 --> 00:36:00.539 retreat. After a controversial March meeting 00:36:00.539 --> 00:36:03.840 in the White House, where Trump and Vice President 00:36:03.840 --> 00:36:07.239 JD Vance openly derided Ukrainian President Vladimir 00:36:07.239 --> 00:36:10.559 Zelensky and hinted at abandonment, European 00:36:10.559 --> 00:36:13.920 leaders swiftly rallied behind Ukraine. British 00:36:13.920 --> 00:36:16.960 Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that European 00:36:16.960 --> 00:36:20.519 nations would ramp up defense spending and forge 00:36:20.519 --> 00:36:24.760 a coalition of the willing. to support Ukraine's 00:36:24.760 --> 00:36:27.239 sovereignty, while European Commission President 00:36:27.239 --> 00:36:30.679 Ursula von der Leyen committed to unveiling a 00:36:30.679 --> 00:36:36.840 strategic aid plan on behalf of the EU. Yet Europe 00:36:36.840 --> 00:36:40.599 cannot, and should not, be expected to simply 00:36:40.599 --> 00:36:43.500 replace the United States as the world's de facto 00:36:43.500 --> 00:36:47.400 guarantor of peace. It lacks the unified military 00:36:47.400 --> 00:36:51.000 capability, global economic clout, and political 00:36:51.000 --> 00:36:54.679 cohesion needed to carry that mantle alone. Moreover, 00:36:55.039 --> 00:36:57.840 even if it could, substituting one hegemon for 00:36:57.840 --> 00:37:00.079 another would repeat the structural flaws of 00:37:00.079 --> 00:37:03.300 the old system. Any serious effort to uphold 00:37:03.300 --> 00:37:06.219 the prohibition on force must reckon with the 00:37:06.219 --> 00:37:08.780 inequities baked into the existing international 00:37:08.780 --> 00:37:13.099 order. When the United Nations was created, five 00:37:13.099 --> 00:37:16.650 dominant powers China, France, the Soviet Union, 00:37:16.889 --> 00:37:19.730 the United Kingdom, and the United States, granted 00:37:19.730 --> 00:37:22.389 themselves permanent seats on the Security Council 00:37:22.389 --> 00:37:25.929 and vetoed authority over all enforcement actions. 00:37:27.250 --> 00:37:30.170 This power imbalance, coupled with America's 00:37:30.170 --> 00:37:33.550 outsized influence, has allowed repeated violations, 00:37:34.010 --> 00:37:37.570 such as the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, to go 00:37:37.570 --> 00:37:41.460 unpunished. Without structural reform and shared 00:37:41.460 --> 00:37:44.719 accountability, any new enforcement regime risks 00:37:44.719 --> 00:37:47.440 reproducing the very vulnerabilities that now 00:37:47.440 --> 00:37:52.519 threaten to bring the old one down. The credibility 00:37:52.519 --> 00:37:55.400 of the post -war legal order, particularly its 00:37:55.400 --> 00:37:58.239 prohibition on the use of force, has been severely 00:37:58.239 --> 00:38:01.739 weakened by its internal contradictions, especially 00:38:01.739 --> 00:38:04.079 in the eyes of many states in the Global South. 00:38:04.940 --> 00:38:08.360 For decades, these states have watched as powerful 00:38:08.360 --> 00:38:11.000 countries preached legal norms while violating 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:14.360 them with impunity, fueling deep skepticism about 00:38:14.360 --> 00:38:18.219 the fairness and legitimacy of the system. This 00:38:18.219 --> 00:38:22.280 distrust risks obscuring what is truly at stake 00:38:22.280 --> 00:38:25.400 if leaders like Donald Trump succeed in dismantling 00:38:25.400 --> 00:38:29.050 the prohibition altogether. Acknowledging these 00:38:29.050 --> 00:38:31.809 long -standing flaws and the inconsistencies 00:38:31.809 --> 00:38:35.329 of the system's architects is not an act of self 00:38:35.329 --> 00:38:38.190 -destruction. It is the necessary foundation 00:38:38.190 --> 00:38:42.070 for building a more inclusive and resilient global 00:38:42.070 --> 00:38:46.349 order. Preserving the legal ban on force will 00:38:46.349 --> 00:38:49.150 require new thinking about international governance, 00:38:49.750 --> 00:38:53.230 rooted in shared responsibility. Rather than 00:38:53.230 --> 00:38:56.800 depending on a single dominant power, A reimagined 00:38:56.800 --> 00:38:59.880 peacekeeping system must empower a broader array 00:38:59.880 --> 00:39:03.500 of states to uphold legal norms, making those 00:39:03.500 --> 00:39:06.639 norms more durable and less vulnerable to shifts 00:39:06.639 --> 00:39:12.440 in any one nation's politics. To achieve this, 00:39:12.960 --> 00:39:15.599 smaller and mid -sized countries must step forward 00:39:15.599 --> 00:39:18.380 to lead. The assumption that a stable international 00:39:18.380 --> 00:39:20.960 order requires a singular great power to act 00:39:20.960 --> 00:39:24.670 as a guarantor has long gone unchallenged. but 00:39:24.670 --> 00:39:27.789 it underestimates the power of coordinated action. 00:39:28.829 --> 00:39:31.409 Collective influence, when states align their 00:39:31.409 --> 00:39:34.449 efforts around shared legal principles, can rival 00:39:34.449 --> 00:39:37.510 or even surpass the influence of any one hegemon. 00:39:38.289 --> 00:39:40.570 The European Union offers a compelling model. 00:39:41.250 --> 00:39:44.630 While none of its 27 members individually wields 00:39:44.630 --> 00:39:47.110 global power, together they have forged one of 00:39:47.110 --> 00:39:50.050 the world's most cohesive and influential political 00:39:50.050 --> 00:39:53.250 blocs. This shows that by building broad -based 00:39:53.250 --> 00:39:56.369 alliances, states that might otherwise feel powerless 00:39:56.369 --> 00:39:59.630 in the face of global instability can shape international 00:39:59.630 --> 00:40:06.650 outcomes and defend core legal norms. The United 00:40:06.650 --> 00:40:09.949 Nations General Assembly, where all 193 member 00:40:09.949 --> 00:40:13.429 states hold equal voting rights, should be positioned 00:40:13.429 --> 00:40:16.369 to take on a more assertive role in this evolving 00:40:16.369 --> 00:40:19.130 order. Although it lacks the enforcement authority 00:40:19.130 --> 00:40:21.659 of the Security Council, the General Assembly 00:40:21.659 --> 00:40:24.739 is explicitly charged with upholding peace and 00:40:24.739 --> 00:40:28.159 security, and recent developments show its untapped 00:40:28.159 --> 00:40:31.400 potential. In response to Russia's invasion of 00:40:31.400 --> 00:40:34.719 Ukraine, the General Assembly activated a new 00:40:34.719 --> 00:40:38.079 veto initiative that allows it to take up and 00:40:38.079 --> 00:40:40.579 debate any resolution blocked by a permanent 00:40:40.579 --> 00:40:44.360 Security Council member. Through this process, 00:40:44.559 --> 00:40:47.239 The assembly helped legitimize international 00:40:47.239 --> 00:40:50.179 sanctions, facilitated the delivery of weapons 00:40:50.179 --> 00:40:53.840 and financial aid to Ukraine, and initiated a 00:40:53.840 --> 00:40:57.059 reparations framework through a global register 00:40:57.059 --> 00:41:00.559 of war damages. These actions illustrate how 00:41:00.559 --> 00:41:03.480 a revitalized General Assembly can help enforce 00:41:03.480 --> 00:41:06.820 international law, even without direct coercive 00:41:06.820 --> 00:41:10.460 power, by coordinating collective responses and 00:41:10.460 --> 00:41:16.619 amplifying global consensus. Regional and issue 00:41:16.619 --> 00:41:19.920 -based coalitions also offer promising pathways 00:41:19.920 --> 00:41:23.360 for reinforcing the prohibition on force. These 00:41:23.360 --> 00:41:26.019 networks, forged through shared goals rather 00:41:26.019 --> 00:41:29.000 than geographic proximity alone, are beginning 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:32.139 to take shape. The Council of Europe, for instance, 00:41:32.559 --> 00:41:35.519 is establishing a special tribunal to compile 00:41:35.519 --> 00:41:38.079 evidence and pursue legal accountability for 00:41:38.079 --> 00:41:42.039 Russian aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile, a block 00:41:42.039 --> 00:41:45.159 of countries known as the Hague Group, including 00:41:45.159 --> 00:41:48.719 Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, 00:41:49.139 --> 00:41:52.980 Namibia, Senegal and South Africa, is actively 00:41:52.980 --> 00:41:56.019 working to implement decisions from the International 00:41:56.019 --> 00:41:58.900 Court of Justice and the International Criminal 00:41:58.900 --> 00:42:03.679 Court regarding the conflict in Gaza. In May, 00:42:04.159 --> 00:42:06.300 foreign ministers from the African Union and 00:42:06.300 --> 00:42:09.139 the European Union pledged deeper cooperation 00:42:09.139 --> 00:42:12.809 on peace, security and development. laying the 00:42:12.809 --> 00:42:15.530 groundwork for a transcontinental peace coalition 00:42:15.530 --> 00:42:18.730 that could function independently of US leadership. 00:42:19.489 --> 00:42:22.190 These efforts underscore a growing recognition 00:42:22.190 --> 00:42:25.170 that safeguarding international law is not the 00:42:25.170 --> 00:42:28.210 burden of a few, but the shared responsibility 00:42:28.210 --> 00:42:33.710 of many. While the UN Security Council remains 00:42:33.710 --> 00:42:36.809 the only formal body authorized to sanction war 00:42:36.809 --> 00:42:39.780 in the name of enforcing international law, its 00:42:39.780 --> 00:42:43.539 limitations are increasingly apparent, especially 00:42:43.539 --> 00:42:46.500 when one of its permanent members is the violator. 00:42:47.420 --> 00:42:49.480 There is nothing preventing states from forming 00:42:49.480 --> 00:42:53.079 an independent, outcasting council, a coalition 00:42:53.079 --> 00:42:56.699 capable of coordinating joint economic and diplomatic 00:42:56.699 --> 00:42:59.599 penalties against states that breach fundamental 00:42:59.599 --> 00:43:02.920 norms, such as the prohibition on the use of 00:43:02.920 --> 00:43:07.420 force. Sanctions have often failed to deter unlawful 00:43:07.420 --> 00:43:10.510 behavior. largely because they are reactive, 00:43:10.989 --> 00:43:13.809 inconsistently applied, and slow to organize. 00:43:14.409 --> 00:43:17.489 But if countries commit to acting in unison through 00:43:17.489 --> 00:43:20.469 pre -agreed mechanisms, they could transform 00:43:20.469 --> 00:43:23.329 sanctions into a far more reliable and potent 00:43:23.329 --> 00:43:26.670 tool. Institutionalizing such coordination would 00:43:26.670 --> 00:43:29.130 give legitimacy and teeth to the enforcement 00:43:29.130 --> 00:43:32.050 of international law, without relying solely 00:43:32.050 --> 00:43:38.269 on the dysfunctional security council. Preserving 00:43:38.269 --> 00:43:41.090 the prohibition on force ultimately depends on 00:43:41.090 --> 00:43:44.030 states recognizing both its historical achievements 00:43:44.030 --> 00:43:47.789 and the dangers posed by its unraveling. The 00:43:47.789 --> 00:43:50.429 international community must not passively accept 00:43:50.429 --> 00:43:53.070 the United States' retreat from its enforcement 00:43:53.070 --> 00:43:56.929 role, but instead respond by building new institutions 00:43:56.929 --> 00:44:00.489 to fill the void. Doing so would send a clear 00:44:00.489 --> 00:44:04.309 signal that the commitment to legality and restraint 00:44:04.309 --> 00:44:07.659 is broader than any one nation. and that global 00:44:07.659 --> 00:44:10.960 norms are not subject to unilateral revision 00:44:10.960 --> 00:44:14.579 by any single power, even one as dominant as 00:44:14.579 --> 00:44:18.199 the United States. If Washington were to make 00:44:18.199 --> 00:44:20.760 good on its threats to seize assets like the 00:44:20.760 --> 00:44:23.860 Panama Canal, other nations could respond with 00:44:23.860 --> 00:44:27.099 collective economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, 00:44:27.539 --> 00:44:30.760 or even the withdrawal of basing rights granted 00:44:30.760 --> 00:44:35.190 to the U .S. military. Such actions would not 00:44:35.190 --> 00:44:37.610 only reaffirm the international legal order, 00:44:37.869 --> 00:44:40.250 but demonstrate that a wider array of countries 00:44:40.250 --> 00:44:44.030 are both willing and capable of defending it. 00:44:46.510 --> 00:44:49.489 The threat to the post -war order does not originate 00:44:49.489 --> 00:44:52.449 solely from the United States. Russia and China 00:44:52.449 --> 00:44:55.389 are also actively working to reshape global norms 00:44:55.389 --> 00:44:57.769 to better serve their geopolitical ambitions. 00:44:58.539 --> 00:45:01.300 The durability of the international legal system 00:45:01.300 --> 00:45:04.019 will hinge on whether a more diverse group of 00:45:04.019 --> 00:45:07.920 states, large and small, global north and south, 00:45:08.159 --> 00:45:10.639 can take shared responsibility for upholding 00:45:10.639 --> 00:45:14.539 its core principles. Yet, this will require difficult 00:45:14.539 --> 00:45:17.940 shifts in global power dynamics. It is uncertain 00:45:17.940 --> 00:45:20.199 whether historically dominant powers such as 00:45:20.199 --> 00:45:23.800 France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are prepared 00:45:23.800 --> 00:45:27.019 to relinquish their privileged influence, or 00:45:27.019 --> 00:45:29.820 whether long marginalized countries can trust 00:45:29.820 --> 00:45:33.500 a legal order that has often failed them. Still, 00:45:33.719 --> 00:45:36.179 committing to a legal system built on the prohibition 00:45:36.179 --> 00:45:39.659 of war remains vital. The temptation for smaller 00:45:39.659 --> 00:45:43.599 states to play major powers off one another may 00:45:43.599 --> 00:45:46.420 yield short -term gains, but in the long run, 00:45:46.599 --> 00:45:49.519 It risks turning them into pawns in a renewed 00:45:49.519 --> 00:45:53.159 era of great power rivalry, stripped of agency 00:45:53.159 --> 00:45:59.639 and sovereignty. The post -1945 international 00:45:59.639 --> 00:46:03.679 system, however flawed, brought the world unprecedented 00:46:03.679 --> 00:46:07.199 stability and prosperity. But it will not endure 00:46:07.199 --> 00:46:10.300 without intentional efforts. Its survival depends 00:46:10.300 --> 00:46:13.159 on the recognition that peace is not self -sustaining. 00:46:13.369 --> 00:46:17.150 It must be actively protected and reimagined 00:46:17.150 --> 00:46:20.630 in every generation. After the outbreak of World 00:46:20.630 --> 00:46:23.570 War II, American leaders understood that the 00:46:23.570 --> 00:46:26.469 failure to build a stable order after World War 00:46:26.469 --> 00:46:30.389 I had enabled catastrophe. They resolved not 00:46:30.389 --> 00:46:33.050 to repeat that mistake. The lesson of history 00:46:33.050 --> 00:46:36.190 is clear. Waiting until the chaos has subsided 00:46:36.190 --> 00:46:39.679 to chart a new course guarantees failure. As 00:46:39.679 --> 00:46:41.940 the post -war system comes under pressure from 00:46:41.940 --> 00:46:45.500 within and without, today's leaders must act 00:46:45.500 --> 00:46:48.360 with foresight, not only to defend what has been 00:46:48.360 --> 00:46:52.119 built, but to design new institutions, alliances, 00:46:52.780 --> 00:46:55.679 and mechanisms that can safeguard peace in a 00:46:55.679 --> 00:46:59.599 rapidly changing world. Failing to do so invites 00:46:59.599 --> 00:47:02.860 the return of an era where law yields to power 00:47:02.860 --> 00:47:09.820 and diplomacy gives way to force. I want to leave 00:47:09.820 --> 00:47:12.619 you with this. The international order we've 00:47:12.619 --> 00:47:15.920 come to rely on didn't build itself, and it won't 00:47:15.920 --> 00:47:19.340 survive passively. The idea that war is not an 00:47:19.340 --> 00:47:22.300 acceptable tool of statecraft took generations 00:47:22.300 --> 00:47:25.099 to construct, and it can be undone in a matter 00:47:25.099 --> 00:47:28.900 of years or even moments. Whether it's Trump's 00:47:28.900 --> 00:47:32.119 rhetoric, Russia's aggression, or China's ambitions, 00:47:32.760 --> 00:47:36.219 the challenge ahead is clear. But so is the opportunity. 00:47:36.920 --> 00:47:39.440 Countries. big and small, have the chance to 00:47:39.440 --> 00:47:42.360 reclaim ownership of the rules, and reaffirm 00:47:42.360 --> 00:47:45.920 that law, not force, should shape our world. 00:47:47.760 --> 00:47:50.039 Thanks for tuning in to Diplomacy in Discourse. 00:47:50.480 --> 00:47:53.179 If you got thoughts, whether you agree, disagree, 00:47:53.360 --> 00:47:55.760 or want to add something new, drop a comment, 00:47:56.139 --> 00:47:58.500 send a message, and let's keep this conversation 00:47:58.500 --> 00:48:02.820 alive. Until next time, stay sharp, stay curious, 00:48:03.320 --> 00:48:04.139 and stay engaged.