The Law of Force vs. the Force of Law in Today’s World

To grasp what is happening in today’s global order, one must carefully examine the proceedings and outcomes of the recent G20 Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. The indisputable conclusion is that political deadlock, disputes, and divisions characterize the current strategic environment, guided by a flawed compass.

This dysfunction fuels uncertainty, ambiguity, and mistrust in the international system, making it increasingly difficult to humanize international relations. Achieving this goal requires reforming institutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which were established after World War II. Unfortunately, these institutions still operate with the same actors, inequitable rules, and entrenched interests.

French President Emmanuel Macron, in his speech at the summit, stressed the need for new global governance. He called for a world that manages its affairs with efficiency, productivity, and a unified voice. His vision aligns with the demands of the Global South.

However, realizing this vision requires international actors to officially acknowledge the failure of existing institutions and begin the process of reform. But is this feasible? While there is broad agreement that these institutions have failed, implementing reforms appears impossible under the current international actors and the nature of today’s global conflicts, which offer little hope for resolution.

As I write these lines, Ukraine has struck Russian territory with long-range American ATACMS missiles, and Russia is issuing nuclear deterrence threats after amending its strategic and nuclear doctrine to include any threats from non-nuclear states or their nuclear-armed allies.

At the G20 Summit, President Macron proposed the creation of two new permanent seats on the UN Security Council—one for Africa and another for Latin America. While this proposal is logical, achieving it is currently impossible, as it depends on the consent of the three major powers: the United States, Russia, and China.

These countries remain the cornerstone of any reform initiative. Furthermore, success would require the collective agreement of the Global South to determine which countries would permanently represent their regions on the Security Council.

The work of the UN Secretary-General is similarly constrained, limited to administrative roles, and shaped by the contradictions and conflicts within the Security Council. Secretaries-General must navigate their explicitly defined duties under the UN Charter and the unwritten rules dictated by dominant global powers.

These unwritten rules create red lines that restrict the operations of the Secretariat and the entire organization. Reforming the UN remains a formidable challenge. The harsh reality is that the resolution of today’s violent conflicts and ongoing crises often occurs outside the UN framework, dictated instead by power dynamics among major nations.

Reforming international financial institutions, such as the IMF, also hinges on the willingness of major powers, particularly the United States and European nations, which are reluctant to cede their influence. The IMF requires new legitimacy and governance models—not only to streamline negotiations but also to overhaul its quota system and allocate resources more equitably. Moreover, the U.S. role in the IMF has shifted from that of a neutral "referee" to an active "player" seeking to open markets on its terms.

The world today faces a massive crisis of trust, trapped between the hammer of the "law of force" and the anvil of the "rule of law." Currently, there are over 57 active conflicts worldwide involving more than 200 armed groups, with these disputes costing the global economy an estimated $17 trillion—unprecedented figures in human history. Major global governance institutions have failed to resolve these conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Instead, they remain hostage to the interests of powerful nations that deploy envoys to conflict zones, issue carefully worded statements, and expose their hypocrisy during Security Council votes or by fully arming one side of a conflict.

Sadly, the law of force prevails in the current global system, with Western smiles often masking hypocrisy and double standards that serve their interests. This dynamic deepens the divide between the Global South and the major powers of the global system, while also heightening tensions among these powers themselves.

"Force does not create right," wrote Jean-Jacques Rousseau more than two and a half centuries ago. His words remain as relevant as ever: tyranny, oppression, and authoritarianism may shatter the veneer of legitimacy. When legitimacy fades or weakens, the oppressed lose their means of defense and struggle even to demand their rights.