By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Necessary cookies are essential for distinguishing human visitors from bots, enabling accurate website usage reports. Functional cookies remember user preferences, such as language selection. Performance and analytical cookies, like those used by Google Analytics, track visitor behavior to generate statistical data and optimize request rates. Advertising or marketing cookies gather information on consumer activity for analytics purposes.
Read the original article here
Belgium’s recent statement that actions taken by the United States and Israel against Iran do not meet the standards of international law has certainly sparked a vigorous debate, and it’s a discussion that touches upon some very fundamental questions about how the world operates, or perhaps, how it *should* operate. It’s quite understandable that a country like Belgium, with its strong ties to international institutions and a history of advocating for diplomacy, would voice such concerns. This perspective suggests a belief in a framework of rules that are meant to govern state behavior, even in times of significant tension and conflict.
The core of Belgium’s apparent stance is that specific actions, presumably in the context of the ongoing tensions with Iran, have crossed a line defined by international legal principles. This implies that while nations may have legitimate security concerns, the means employed to address them are subject to scrutiny under a universal legal code. It’s a call for adherence to established norms, suggesting that unilateral or overly aggressive actions, even by powerful states, can undermine the very foundations of global order and peaceful coexistence.
However, this sentiment seems to be met with a considerable amount of skepticism and even outright dismissal by many, based on the prevailing sentiments. A recurring theme is the perception that international law, as it currently stands, is largely ineffective. The argument is often made that without robust enforcement mechanisms and genuine accountability for violations, international law becomes little more than “pointless hot air.” This sentiment is frequently bolstered by examples of powerful nations or actors seemingly acting with impunity, leading to the conclusion that such laws are selectively applied or ignored when they inconvenience those with the most significant power.
Furthermore, there’s a strong undercurrent of “whataboutism” present in many reactions. If Belgium is questioning the legality of US-Israel actions, many point to Iran’s own extensive history of actions that they believe also violate international law. These often include, as cited, a long-standing rhetoric calling for the destruction of other nations, funding and training of terror groups, and alleged massacres of civilians. From this perspective, questioning the actions of the US and Israel without also addressing or condemning Iran’s alleged transgressions is seen as hypocritical or at least incomplete. The idea is that if international law is to have any meaning, it must be applied universally and consistently to all parties.
The practical reality of enforcement is another major point of contention. Many express doubt about how or if violations of international law are ever truly punished. The mention of war criminals like Putin, who are not currently facing any immediate international consequences, serves as a stark illustration of this point. The question “What are the consequences?” is a common refrain, highlighting a perceived gap between the pronouncements of international law and tangible outcomes. This leads to a cynical view that powerful nations can essentially dictate their own rules, with international law serving more as a tool for the powerful to dictate terms to the less powerful, rather than a genuine check on their actions.
There’s also a pragmatic, almost survivalist, argument presented. If a nation, like Iran, is perceived as openly threatening another with destruction and actively pursuing means to do so, the argument goes that the threatened nation has a right to defend itself, even if those actions are not strictly aligned with every tenet of international law. The hypothetical scenario of Iran developing nuclear weapons and potentially detonating them in European cities is used to illustrate a point where such “weakness” from Western Europe in upholding international law could have catastrophic consequences.
The effectiveness of international institutions like the UN and EU is also brought into question. Their perceived inability to prevent or effectively respond to violations of international law by powerful actors, such as Russia or, in this context, Iran, leads to the conclusion that these bodies and their pronouncements hold little sway. This perception breeds a sense of frustration and disillusionment, leading some to suggest that countries should focus on more concrete actions rather than diplomatic statements or appeals to international law.
Ultimately, the discussion surrounding Belgium’s statement reveals a deep-seated debate about the nature and relevance of international law in a world often characterized by power politics. While Belgium’s position champions the ideal of a rules-based international order, many of the reactions suggest a belief that this ideal is a distant, perhaps unattainable, reality. The prevailing sentiment often leans towards a more cynical view, where might truly makes right, and international law is seen as an idealistic concept that struggles to find purchase in the face of hard power and geopolitical realities. The call for enforcement is paramount, and until that is demonstrably achieved, many remain unconvinced of the practical value of such pronouncements, even from well-intentioned nations.