04 March 2026
The Iran War and the Dutch Retreat from International Law
On 2 March, the Netherlands’ new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tom Berendsen, stated that he could have “understanding” for the American and Israeli attacks on Iran. According to the minister, we must thus pursue a more realistic course in which there is only limited room for international law. Such a relativization of international law, and its selective application, is troubling, not only from a moral perspective, but above all from a constitutional one. Continue reading >>
0 
03 March 2026
International Law of Equals
The old, cherished post-war international legal order no longer exists. The stakes were clear even before the recent, blatantly illegal attack on Iran led by the United States and Israel. After attacking Venezuela in January, Donald Trump freely admitted that he was only interested in his own morality, not international law. Mark Carney and Emmanuel Macron articulated the antithesis to Trump in Davos. Both professed their commitment to a multilateral, rules-based order, placing predictability above high-handedness. Each vision has a history that can provide insight into the conditions for their success. Continue reading >>
0
02 March 2026
Is the International Norm Against Assassination Dead?
On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel assassinated the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. The joint operation marked the first time either state has directly killed a sitting head of state. As with the US’s January 2026 operation against Nicolás Maduro, what stands out is not only the gravity of the act but the manner in which it was justified. While the international norm against assassination may not yet be fully dead, its recent trajectory offers little hope for its restoration. Continue reading >>11 February 2026
International Law and the Imperial Ordering of the International
International law is an ordering language. It is predicated upon an imperial, western-centric, and hierarchical structure. It is a language of domination, of exclusion, of differentiated inclusion, but also of promise. The language of international law, which the Global South uses and appeals to, does not simply hold the promise of rectification; it also reproduces the problems it is supposed to help solve. This short reflection addresses such contradictions and how reflexivity in international law could help mitigate them. Continue reading >>
0
03 February 2026
The End of an Era?
“I don't need international law.” This statement by US President Donald Trump is likely to go down in history. European countries should now remember their strengths. Even under the new global political circumstances, Europe remains a player whose economic weight cannot be ignored for the time being. More importantly, Europe stands for a normative alternative that holds global appeal in contrast to the imperial-feudalistic US vision of order. Continue reading >>27 January 2026
“Hypocrisy Implies a Moral Code”
The US raid capturing Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, triumphed tactically, yet skipped serious international legal defense. Unlike prior administrations that bent law to justify force, Trump's team relies on regime crimes and success alone, sidelining global norms. Without even hypocritical legal nods, as Orwell noted even hypocrisy needs a code, international law's binding force crumbles. Continue reading >>
0
23 January 2026
International Law in, and as, Crisis
International law emerges most visibly in moments of catastrophe – war, mass violence, humanitarian breakdown – when it is called upon to restrain power, assign responsibility, and promise a horizon of order. Crisis has never been external to international law; it has been its condition of existence. Yet today, something more troubling is underway. International law is not only responding to crisis; it is itself in crisis. But its crisis did not begin in Gaza, Ukraine, or Washington. Its roots run far deeper. What is needed now is an international law from below. Continue reading >>
0
14 January 2026
Remaking the United Nations
It has long been recognised that the institutional structure of the United Nations—most centrally, the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council—is deeply problematic. What is now at stake is not whether the United Nations can be improved, but whether it can continue to function when its most powerful members openly exempt themselves from its core commitments. We have reached the point when the Charter’s principles require rethinking the UN’s institutional form. Continue reading >>10 January 2026
Retreating from Internationalism
On January 7, President Trump issued a memorandum, “Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States.” The memorandum lists 66 entities for withdrawal, many of which are connected to the United Nations. This is another dramatic signal from the Trump Administration. It shows scorn for the global commons and disdain for the United Nations. The symbolic impact is obvious and vicious. The practical impact is harder to measure. Continue reading >>
0
05 January 2026