4th March 2026
*
Hello and welcome to The Empty City blog, the new name of which is explained here.
*
From time-to-time this law and policy blog touches upon international law. The last time a post was devoted to it was only in January this year, though that already seems a long time ago.
The argument put forward in that post was that even if international law cannot readily be enforced, it still nonetheless can be recognised. This means international law, like any body of law, still exists, even if it is being disregarded.
The tree still makes a noise when it falls in the forest.
But.
It is also fair to say that many are sceptical and dismissive about international law, and even some (eminent) lawyers regard it as essentially a fiction.
*
One problem about international law is that it can often seem one-sided.
Take for example the inability of many (though not all) European countries to say plainly that the attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States were not in accordance with international law, let alone in breach.
When a European territory (like Greenland) and a European country (Ukraine) are threatened or attacked, then European leaders are ready to invoke international law.
But when it is not a European territory or a European country at stake, there is an awkward silence.
Of course, the United Kingdom government know that the attacks on Iran were illegal – it is the necessary implication of the stated position on the validity of “defensive” attacks.
And, of course, we know why as a matter of realpolitik the United Kingdom government thinks it cannot say this aloud.
No sensible person is under any illusion on either point.
But.
One can also see why elsewhere in the world many do not take the West’s professed attachment to international law seriously.
*
Iran’s scattergun retaliations against those not concerned with the American and Israeli attacks are plainly against international law.
And that these retaliations are against international law is said aloud, including by the United Kingdom government.
We thereby have one without the other.
We openly say one thing is against International law, but are closed-mouthed about the other.
*
Yet unless international law applies to all nations (the clues are in the words “international” and “law”) then it can hardly be called international. Or law.
But in something akin to “victor’s justice”, it is a standard we only seem to invoke plainly against some countries and not others.
From the perspective of this liberal blog, international law is a good thing. In general the more international law is recognised and even enforced the better.
But international law will never get real traction when it is deployed in such a one-sided way.
A thing cannot be both universal and partial.
And so to condemn Iran for breaching international law in its reckless retaliations to attacks, but not the countries making those attacks, means you end up with a position that is neither coherent nor compelling.
Yet for international law to gain purchase in the world, the case for it needs to be coherent and compelling.
Else, like the cynics maintain, it is (or will be seen as) little more than fiction.
**
This post will also be cross-posted at The Empty City substack, which is run in parallel with this blog.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Winston Churchill, in the post-War period, made the most wonderful series of speeches. He started with one in Fulton, Missouri; I [Margaret Thatcher] was privileged to speak on its 50th anniversary. And he started there as we would start—democracy, liberty is not just a cry. Our form of government is not just a miscellaneous collection of policies: it is founded on fundamental principles, which Winston called “the title deeds of freedom” . And he said this: “The people of any country have the right and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with a secret ballot, to choose or change the character of the form of government under which they dwell” . That’s choosing the government. He went on even more fundamentally: “Freedom of speech and of thought and of religion should, of course, prevail. Courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time or custom. Here” , he said to his American audience, “are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home.” Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have independent justice by independent judges, freedom to choose your government every four or five years, so that your government is answerable and accountable to the people.
…
What now? We have been used to freedom for a long time. You know we can’t have freedom without a rule of law. This is a thing I’m always saying to countries who come out of tyranny. You can’t have unconstrained freedom, you have to have a rule of law. And you know, my friends, the most difficult thing is to explain what a rule of law is, as distinct from just an oppressive law. They say, well we’ve got a lot of regulations, the government makes them, the government dictates to us. That’s not what a rule of law is, I say. It’s having wise judges who decide fairly and whose decisions are taken and honoured. It’s having your laws made in a parliament which is accountable to the people and which you know are going to be honourably administered. That’s why we don’t just call it law, we call it a rule of law. You cannot have freedom without a rule of law, and that is the most difficult thing, I think, to get into countries that have never known it. And if you don’t have it, what you tend to get is corruption and that is death to freedom, it’s death to truth, it’s death to honour, it’s death to democracy. We need to bring over to the West people from countries who have not known a rule of law, who have not known independent judges, who have not known the free debate that we have, we should bring them over so that they can, in fact, see what happens in this country.
Margaret Thatcher: “Freedom, Economic Liberty and the Rule of Law” speech, 1 October 1996
What now the Rule of Law, both here and internationally?
I remember that speech. She also referred to the successfull toppling of the Iranian government thirteen years before, a combined effort by MI6 and the CIA. Or maybe I remember this incorrectly.
What now, what then.
It is striking that, among global leaders, it appears that only the Spanish Prime Minister has had the moral authority and courage to openly call out both Israel and the United States for what he described as flagrant breaches of international law. His intervention stands out precisely because so few others have been willing to confront these actions directly.
Importantly, he did not limit his criticism to those two states. He also condemned Iran for its attack on the GCS, underscoring that violations of international norms must be addressed consistently, regardless of the actor involved.
This balanced but uncompromising stance highlights the rarity of leadership willing to challenge powerful nations and insist on accountability under international law.
Well said. I was impressed, and surprised, by his statement.
The law of the jungle seems a close analogy especially if we consider the world as many jungles . Whether governments are democratic or despotic or theocratic they are equals provided they maintain some sort of balance among the other beasts. There is nothing outside that balance to dictate what the beasts can or cannot do.
Within the domain of each big beast there are other animals competing to be big beasts. If the top beast does not roar enough it will be replaced. Roar too much and some neighbouring beast may do the replacing. That is the law of our jungle.
Only lower down the biting order does the usual notion of ‘law’ emerge. Law that is a means of control of the smaller animals. For comfort’s sake we present an illusion the laws apply all the way up to the top beast. This is a useful fiction.
Some animals may want to trade with animals in another jungle, some agreements are convenient but when push comes to shove the jungle law prevails. From here some notion of ‘international law’ may emerge but only so long as it is convenient. It seems a weak thing not binding on bigger beasts.
As the natural world has evolved so our human jungle has evolved symbioses and parasitisms and a delicate balance of needs and provisions we see in action every day.