What Remains of Law Against War, law.georgetown.edu

av
Mary Ellen O’Connell, Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law and Professor of International Peace Studies—Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame

CONCLUSION
Unlawful uses of force by the West cannot in any respect justify Russia’s fullscale invasion of Ukraine or Israel’s war in Gaza. This Article has shown, however, that Western violations do help explain the loss of respect for law against war. Western wars since the end of the Cold War have been paired with flexible,
implausible interpretations of the law. These have been drafted in the context of a wider reconceptualization of international relations, known as the RBIO.
Invented as the Cold War ended, the RBIO rests on a deeply flawed view of international law. It is one where a few states can reinterpret fundamental norms for their own benefit—in particular, norms governing the non-use of force and the equality of states. The RBIO’s negative consequences have been considerable.
They include lowering the psychological barrier to Russia’s commission of the most egregious Charter violation since 1945, as well as the United States’ obvious loss of standing as a champion of law. As the post-Cold War era ends amidst widespread violent conflict, human rights atrocities, global health emergencies, and environmental collapse, lessons from the end of World War II—another Zeitenwende. Läs artikel

Print