Oxford historian Margaret MacMillan asked in the pages of Foreign Affairs whether our troubled world order would be able to survive the disruptive Donald Trump. She wrote that “today’s order appears to be stronger and more resilient than its 1930s counterpart” but, clearly, “norms that were long considered inviolable have been flouted.” She means flouted long before Trump returned to the White House.
Evidence supports both observations. The rules on the use of force, human rights, the environment, and the economy are deeper and more comprehensive than a century ago. People around the world know they have human rights and are not going to forget regardless of the level of violation and disrespect. But disregard has been significant. The normative barriers to conquest, genocide, and catastrophic environmental damage have been declining for decades. One reason for the decline has been a strategy of flexible interpretation. International lawyers present a version of the rules that leaves national leaders free to pursue lawless policies while claiming to be law-abiding. The rationale is that it is better to have thin law than no law at all.
The strategy has backfired. Trump cares little for any law that might restrain him, even minimally. Läs artikel