We will remember President Trump’s first speech – content, tone, setting, attendants – as a watershed in global history. For good or for bad, some moments are.

For us Europeans, it was a watershed in foreign and security policy and trade policy, but that’s the least of it. For each of us – on a more personal level – it was the end of a certainty dating back to WWII, the feeling of having the US backing us.

I don’t use these words lightly. As a Western European grown up during the Cold War, I was grateful for being a citizen in an (almost) democratic state, backed by an (almost ) democratic superpower. As a law professor and critical thinker, I don’t speak by absolutes.

Yet, as a teenager, I knew I could move freely in my half of the globe, access many different sources of information, express my dissent, and choose my path. These are not freedoms I take for granted, not anymore. Not when I see so many democratic recessions around.

President Trump was entirely within his rights when he declared that he would step back from the war in Ukraine and stop supporting that country. There was nothing wrong in stating a wish to promote peace. Yet, choosing to ignore that one is the aggressor and the other is the aggressed is a choice of field. Bullying the latter is a choice of field. Impartiality and love for peace have nothing to do with these choices.

He was far less in his rights when he expressed on several occasions territorial claims – to be enforced by force or by money – or the wish, immediately acknowledged, to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The American Gulf Stream is just a step away.

He was clearly outside any right or rule when he had the creative idea of imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (yes, it could not be more official). He manifested his support to the victim of the prosecution of the ICC, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, with a gift of 4 billion in weapons, while the said Prime Minister is responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions. Another peace-loving gesture.

A red thread connects all these positions, and other ones, such as threatening and negotiating a considerable rise in customs duties outside the World Trade Organization or withdrawing from multilateral organizations.

The attack is not on (or not just) Canada, Mexico, Greenland or the ICC; it is on the world order and international law as we know it.

The most sacred and precious rules of international law are the respect of borders and the prohibition of using force, also known as the principle of non-aggression. Both are written in the United Nations Charter and considered customary rules of international law, so necessary that they constitute its core of jus cogens.

Accepting the fact that Russia may well invade Ukraine and claim a part of it as a result, that Israel may annihilate the population of the Gaza Strip with bombs and starvation, that a state may appropriate another or buy another as it is convenient, means demolishing from the foundations every expectation of peace among any state in the world.

A 100 years step back in history.

Many people say that international law is ineffective, and many criticize the (often seen) double standards when some are sanctioned while others are not. Yet, no one has ever, until now, stated that a world without rules would be better. And many are at work daily to make the existing ones more effective.

A common criticism is that international law (just like any law) is for the weak, while the strong tend to ignore it. It is a precious truth. Law is for the vulnerable ones, for the minorities, and for the victim. It is the hope of justice, sometimes fulfilled, sometimes not. It is even more so in a community of not equals like the international community.

The European Union is an association of small and not-so-small states. Yet, none of them is big or big enough to navigate a world without law, and together, they are just 6% of the world’s population even if they produce the third GDP after (and close to) US and China. We are small, and we know it.

The Union has in its mandate the defence of international law. It is in article 21.1 of the Treaty establishing the European Union (TEU):

“The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have
inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.”

If peace among its members is the structural goal of the Union, law – inside and outside of its territory – is its only hope for success. Our only hope. Our attempts at building a common defence policy are due and understandable, yet they will never be as successful as our rule of law.

When President Trump gave his inauguration speech, the big corporates’ CEOs and Silicon Valley gurus were with him. They are as powerful – and even more – and seem aligned on the same goal. Destroying international law seems to us a short-sighted and dystopian goal. The advantage of being free riders in a lawless world may bring benefits to the strong ones in the short term, but it is – cannot not be – an existential threat for all, even for them.

On a lighter note, I asked Chat GPT to produce a picture for “Defending International Law”, I was answered with a denial: “your request likely didn’t align with the content policy due to themes related to political and governmental symbolism in a way that could be interpreted as advocating for real-world organizations, movements, or ideologies.”

International law qualified as an ideology! Can you believe it?

I requested something within the content policy and got the esoteric fantasy picture you can see. The one above. Almost scary.