While modern conservative rhetoric often frames international law as a threat to sovereignty, historical right-wing figures viewed it as a vital foundation for global order.
Key facts
- •A recent poll found that 49 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, while 27 percent oppose it.
- •Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described the International Criminal Court as waging a war against the U.S. through statutes and compacts.
- •The 17th-century jurist Hugo Grotius is credited with formulating the early vision of international law based on natural law and universal moral principles.
- •The 'responsibility to protect' doctrine is cited as a development that challenges the traditional principle that governments are the sole subjects of international law.
- •The author argues that the U.S. has used its power to threaten the seizure of Greenland and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently called for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he visit for the United Nations General Assembly. While Mamdani's legal team determined the city lacks the authority to act, the incident highlights a broader debate over the role of international law. The current U.S. administration has rejected the International Criminal Court, characterizing its influence as an existential threat to American sovereignty.
By the numbers
Historical Conservative Support
Historically, prominent American conservatives advocated for international law as a necessary mechanism to prevent global conflict. Senator Robert Taft, known as 'Mr. Republican,' argued that peace required an association of nations bound by a court of legal justice. Similarly, Elihu Root, who served as Secretary of War and State, emphasized that the protection of laws constraining nations to principles of justice was a primary possession of peaceable countries.
Evolution of International Law
The modern interpretation of international law has shifted from a system governing relations between sovereign states to one that often intervenes in domestic affairs, such as human rights. Critics argue this 'vertical' approach, which includes concepts like the 'responsibility to protect,' threatens the principle of state sovereignty. This contrasts with the traditional 'horizontal' view of international law, which was designed to facilitate trade and manage conflict between states.
Realism Versus Predation
The current U.S. approach, described as 'flexible realism,' is criticized for prioritizing power over established rules. Proponents of a return to traditional international law argue that without such constraints, foreign policy risks descending into predation. They contend that a cautious, prudential application of international law could have prevented major foreign policy disasters, such as the wars in Iraq and Iran.
Advertisement
This article was independently rewritten by ManyPress editorial AI from reporting originally published by Foreign Policy.
