The world is in disarray, and international law seems to be losing its grip. Are we on the brink of global anarchy? That's the uncomfortable question we need to confront. From disregarded international court warrants to powerful nations bending the rules to their will, the global order appears to be crumbling. But here's where it gets controversial: is this a complete breakdown, or a shift in power dynamics with the potential for a new world order?
A World in Disarray: Trump's View
Let's start with the big picture. Since we last checked in, the international landscape has become increasingly turbulent. Former President Trump has boldly declared that the responsibility of saving the world has been thrust upon him, suggesting that the United Nations is largely ineffective. He boasts of resolving eight wars (soon to be nine!), while simultaneously criticizing the UN for minor inconveniences like a malfunctioning escalator or teleprompter. Now, I know that sounds a bit outlandish, but Trump insists that he walks the talk unlike the UN and its institutions. He has repeatedly asserted that the UN, despite its claims of maintaining global peace and security, is essentially useless, and that the US is the anchor holding everything together. Trump hasn't shied away from driving this narrative home at every opportunity.
Sustainability Takes a Backseat?
The global push for sustainability is also facing headwinds. Even Bill Gates, a staunch advocate for the green revolution, seems to be having second thoughts. Upon seeing the financial projections and energy demands of the AI revolution—fueled by Microsoft's partnership with OpenAI—Gates has seemingly made a U-turn. He suggests that there are more pressing issues than climate change, given the immense amount of energy (largely from fossil fuels) required to power the AI revolution. And to this, Trump cheers! He calls climate change "the greatest con-job ever perpetrated on the world!" and praises Gates for his perceived change of heart. Trump has also taken credit for pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement, dealing another blow to the UN, international law, and global governance.
Ongoing Conflicts and Disregarded International Law
The Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine wars, ongoing since 2022 and 2023 respectively, continue to destabilize the world. While a fragile peace deal is being discussed in the latter conflict, the ceasefire is reportedly being ignored by Israel. The death toll has surpassed 70,000 and continues to rise. The Russia/Ukraine peace talks are also at a precarious stage. Ukraine is demanding robust security guarantees, while Russia insists on keeping the territories it has seized, particularly in the Donbas region, and rejects Ukraine's membership in NATO. That is the story according to Putin. The attempted membership of Ukraine in NATO being one of the factors that triggered Russia’s act of aggression in the first place; how then does Russia accept Ukraine’s acceptance into NATO as a prerequisite security guarantee for the ending of the same war?
From the US's 28-point plan (which some believe favored Russia) to the counter 19-point plan by the US, Ukraine, and Europe, the war rages on, mocking state sovereignty, human rights, and international law. The big nations are taking charge, and Trump hopes to claim his 'ninth win'.
Furthermore, the International Criminal Court's (ICC) arrest warrants for figures like Putin and Netanyahu for alleged international crimes have been ignored. This is a familiar trend for the ICC, an institution designed to end impunity and grave crimes that threaten global peace and security.
Trouble Spots Around the Globe
Unrest is brewing on our own continent, Africa. Rwanda and DR Congo had a week-long clash in January, a recurrent regional conflict rooted in colonial-era meddling. Insurgencies and conflicts plague the Sahel region, including Burkina Faso, which, along with Mali and Niger, exited ECOWAS in January, citing the organization's ineffectiveness against terrorism, unfair sanctions, and Western influence. Other Global South countries like India and Pakistan have experienced similar Western-imperialism-originated-and-recurring conflicts, with the long-standing struggle over Kashmir causing a four-day clash between these two countries in May.
While relentlessly attacking Gaza, Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran in June, supported by the US, ending in another tenuous ceasefire.
The West, particularly the US, has actively swept under the carpet the glaring genocide committed by Israel—right from the Biden through to the Trump administration. Donald Trump, inspired by Elon Musk, proclaimed that White South Africans were under genocidal attack, while millions of Palestinians suffer under a neo-imperialistic campaign.
In the Caribbean Sea, the US is conducting lethal strikes against boats and submarines purportedly smuggling drugs, bending international law to its limits. The Trump administration insists on painting this barbaric act of theirs as a self-defence act of a sort against an ‘armed attack’ by so-called South American ‘terrorist’ drug cartels. That is to say that this alleged act of smuggling narcotics into the US by South Americans—in the USA’s estimation—qualifies, under international law, as an armed attack—as an act of war.
Even the UK is Reconsidering Immigration
Even the UK, traditionally immigration-friendly, is seemingly tiring of immigrants, particularly refugees. The government has announced an overhaul to its asylum policy with restrictive clauses such as, among others, the reduction of the tenure of protection for refugees from permanent/long-term to temporary protection and the undertaking of periodic reviews every two and a half years to assess the statuses of these refugees to determine whether a return to their home countries is feasible. Some within the Conservative Party are even calling for withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), viewing it as an impediment to national sovereignty. Isn't it just funny whenever nations of the West dare to purport a breach of their sovereignty and rights?!
The Big Picture: A Global Jungle?
In short: everyone, everywhere is doing whatever they like. International law and global governance are not at their strongest. A narrative of 'you can't tell us nothing!' prevails, with countries acting with impunity, expecting no repercussions.
This has been the approach of the West since the dawn of modern history and the creation of these modern systems of international law. However, very slowly but surely, the rest of the world—quite understandably—is catching on in this trend of impunity. Because after all, what does game theory teach us? Everyone acts in their own best interest, knowing that others are also acting in their own best interest.
We really seem to be headed for a global jungle—although, again, it can be argued that we in the Global South have, since the institution of the modern systems of international law, had a piece of hell carved out of this system specifically for us. We have always been dealt a bad hand—so there is nothing really new here.
But then, one cannot help but see that there is a conscious effort ongoing towards the dismantling of these international systems. This conscious razing promises no reform at the end—as one would think, but rather, complete anarchy.
The United States, with its painstaking attempts at discrediting and bulldozing the United Nations and its network of institutions, is not doing so with the hopes of building a much more equitable international system—as long advocated for by us the people of the Global South; rather it is a painstaking attempt towards completely removing the global community’s veil of multilateralism and, in the face of growing competition from rivals like China, place the USA unapologetically on the throne of global governance—a throne supposed to be occupied by this so-called unbiased institution, the United Nations.
Indeed, we, the people of the Global South, have long fought for the deconstruction—and reconstruction—of international law and its systems to rid it of its Euro-American-centrism. Hence, it is very easy for such mentions of the dismantling of the present system of global governance to excite us. But one must exercise care, and see this wave of dismantling for what it truly is. The West (the US to boot), unlike us, has no reconstruction in mind; rather, a replacement. It seems to be their ultimate goal that the United States (the US) becomes the United Nations (the UN). We will explore this argument of the USA’s feigned desire for isolationism hiding an absolute hegemonic agenda in a later article. For now, let us turn to one of the few countries doing its utmost best to uphold these communal systems of international relations—Ghana. This is not a punchline to a joke, I promise.
Ghana, Torkornoo, and ECOWAS: Madam Do-the-Right-Thing
Mr. Bernard Bediako Baidoo, MP for Akwatia, disagrees with the ECOWAS Court of Justice on matters of jurisdiction. He argues that Ghana is a sovereign nation with the Supreme Court as its highest court. While acknowledging treaties, he emphasizes national sovereignty as inviolable, even by the ECOWAS Court. Now, this is a common argument, but is it valid?
Mr. Baidoo is not alone in this assertion. Some, inspired by politics, others, by an unadulterated appreciation of the law perhaps, make this same argument of the lack of jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Court to hear this case brought before it by the ‘former’ Chief Justice of Ghana, Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkornoo, regarding the alleged breach of her human rights—particularly, her right to a fair hearing.
In a world ruled by emotions, it's crucial to bring levelheadedness to critical issues. So, sentiments and political leanings aside, let each Ghanaian ask themselves: what is the ECOWAS Court, and can it be legally said to have jurisdiction in this case of Justice Torkornoo? And mind you, whatever response we may find in the law on this question does not necessarily affect the substantive matter at hand—i.e., the allegation of the breach of her human rights.
ECOWAS – on the matter of jurisdiction
By the mid-20th century, a large chunk of the African continent had attained their independence from colonial rule… A reign that involved such mass, morbid human rights abuses on a scale never before seen in modern history, committed by the West upon the continent, had come to an end. The continent was purportedly now free to pursue its own destiny—economic, cultural, social, and political. Being fresh off the boat of colonialism, these newly independent nations were understandably too fatigued. Fragile and weak to survive in a world dominated by the past colonial oppressors, they had to undertake a conscious mobilisation and coalition-building. To completely break free of the influence of imperialism and prosper as independent nations of the highly competitive world, regional integration and cooperation was vital. Thus came the idea for the establishment of pan-Africanist institutions such as the African Union (formerly the Organisation of African Unity) and regional economic communities (RECs) like the ECOWAS (for the West African region), EAC (for the East African region), SADC (for the South African region), etc.
The overarching missions of these regional organisations were simple: help the attainment of economic development for the continent of Africa—an economic prosperity which would culminate in the continent’s positioning as an equal and influential player on the global stage. No sooner had these regional institutions like ECOWAS been established than the realisation hit the continent that economic development, political stability, and human rights were mutually inclusive concepts—one could not be attained without the other. In other words, in order for this continent of Africa and this region of West Africa (in the case of the ECOWAS) to actually attain their mission of economic growth, they had to pay close attention to, among others, the issue of human rights and political stability. So, in 1993, the ECOWAS Treaty of 1975, which had Ghana as one of its fifteen founding nations, was revised, with the mandates of the Community expanded beyond economic matters to include civil and political issues—notably, the promotion and protection of human rights.
So then, this revised Treaty and accompanying Protocols went on to establish the ECOWAS Court of Justice, a court whose jurisdiction, according to Article 9(4) of the Protocol on the Community Court of Justice, as amended by the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, was to include: the determination of cases of "violation of human rights that occur in any Member State." And according to Article 15(4) of the Revised Treaty, judgments of the Court were to be binding—on Member States, institutions within ECOWAS, individuals and corporate bodies of Member States alike. In fact, with the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, we find the ECOWAS Court being one of the very few courts of its kind—both regional and global—that very explicitly provides ordinary citizens of Member States direct access, with no requirement to exhaust local remedies. That is to say that Justice Torkornoo need not have gone all the way through the Ghanaian judicial system—all the way through to the Supreme Court; she could have even brought the case directly before the ECOWAS Court. Is that a bit much? You tell me. This is a treaty which we, as a country, have expressly agreed to be bound by.
Any argument of the sovereignty of nations as superseding the jurisdiction of such regional and global treaties—which nations, on their own accord, sign on to—as attempted by Mr. Baidoo for instance, presents itself as an existential crisis of a sort. It is one that attempts to shake, not only the foundation and very essence of the ECOWAS Court, but also international law as a whole. Because the concepts of international law and absolute sovereignty are like water and oil—they don’t mix well together. There would be no need for the UN, AU, ECOWAS, the ICC, ICJ, and the likes of them, if we, nations spread across the globe, had the mind of insisting upon our absolute sovereignties. So then, on the one hand, yes, countries like ours, Ghana, are sovereign nations—free to determine their own destinies. But these same countries, deeming it imperative for the maintenance of global peace and security have, on their own accord (for the most part),conceded to submitting themselves, whenever expedient and categorically provided for in law, to certain international systems of law and governance—the ECOWAS Court being one of these institutions. That is why I know with certainty that our friend Mr. Baidoo did not buy the very argument that he himself was making regarding the Court’s jurisdiction.
But criticisms are always in order—regarding the admissibility rules of the ECOWAS Court, for instance… The provision in the aforementioned 2005 Supplementary Protocol which allows for the Court to hear cases without the exhaustion of local judicial remedies may just be a good candidate for constructive criticism and perhaps reform.
Madam Do-the-Right-Thing
What is Ghana if not a 'Madam Do-the-Right-Thing'? We are always one of the first African nations to sign on to these international treaties—regional and global. We are always one of the first nations to submit ourselves to obedience—well, truth be told, we do our best not to even breach these laws in the first place. That is why when asked if Ghana would comply with the ruling of the Court on the substantive matter of Justice Torkornoo’s human rights case even after challenging the Court’s jurisdiction, Mr. Baidoo—and someone please send my apologies to the honourable man for this many mentions he is getting here—basically responded with: of course, we will comply!
Ah, aren’t we, as a people, just the sweetest!
Ghana is essentially saying that even though we no go ’gree, we go obey! This is a level of civilisation and global citizenry unmatched by many nations across the globe, specifically the powerful countries—rogue nations like the United States of America, for example.
That being said, even though I will defend strongly, anywhere, any day, Justice Torkornoo’s right of access to the ECOWAS Court, I, like Mr. Baidoo, will be quite surprised if the substantive matter of the alleged human rights abuse is decided in her favour. Let’s discuss this some other time. But I will leave it to Makafui Aikins to take us through the broad and nuanced topic of human rights in the context of international law next week.
The Big Question: Where Do We Go From Here?
Is the current global order collapsing, or is it simply evolving? Are we heading towards a world dominated by individual powerful nations, or can we find a way to strengthen international cooperation and uphold the rule of law? What role should organizations like the UN and ECOWAS play in the future? And perhaps most importantly, how can we ensure that the voices of smaller nations are heard in a world increasingly dominated by powerful players? Share your thoughts in the comments below – I'm eager to hear your perspectives.
Author’s Profile:
Yao Afra Yao
emailprotected
https://muckrack.com/yao-afra-yao
LinkedIn: Yao Afra Yao
The left-handed writer and the right minds.
