Prussian general Carl Von Clausewitz famously said that “war is nothing but the continuation of politics with other means.” That aphorism is equally true if you replace “war” with “international law.” The only difference is that war is self-evidently an exercise of power, while international law often purports to be a stabilizing set of neutral principles, expounded by dispassionate arbiters. The reaction of global legal institutions to the war in Gaza has exposed fundamental contradictions in this system. These contradictions should lead the United States to question whether supporting this system remains consistent with its interests.
For centuries, “international law” generally described a set of norms, treaties, and agreements among nation-states. The twentieth-century success of law-based capitalist economies and the horrors of the world wars inspired many to seek an international legal framework akin to domestic law. The noble intention was to create something resembling a global government—a rules-based international order, as it is often called—administered by experts, with international courts resolving disputes.
The appeal of such a system is obvious. But like most utopian visions, it doesn’t work as intended. Nations submit to such arrangements only if it is in their interest to do so, or if other nations compel them. Matters of war and peace remain the province of statesmen, not litigators.
Which brings us to Gaza. The reaction of many international legal institutions to Hamas’s barbarous October 7 attack and Israel’s response has exposed their deeply political nature and biases, as well as those of the sovereign states who back them.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) charged Israeli officials with war crimes and crimes against humanity based on Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The court’s latest action is part of a pattern of expanding its jurisdictional limits in order to pursue cases against states like the United States and Israel, neither of which are parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. These excesses have prompted bipartisan support in Congress for sanctions against the ICC. The use of such a tool of national power is an appropriate response, as the ICC’s action is best understood as a power play by an international organization and its sovereign backers under the guise of “law.” Force is best met with counterforce.
Israel is at least a party to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has issued a series of increasingly provocative orders against it. In January, an ICJ ruling ordered Israel to take several measures—including allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza—that seem unobjectionable at first glance. But, despite carefully avoiding any finding that Israel was engaged in a genocide, the ruling nevertheless encouraged a drumbeat of slanderous allegations—including from Francesca Albanese, the UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur for Palestine. Israel ratified the Genocide Convention in 1950, and the term “genocide” was only coined in 1944. Had Israel, fresh from the memories of the Holocaust, understood how the term “genocide” would be watered down and manipulated 69 years later, it surely would not have assented to ICJ jurisdiction. If Israel’s military operations in Gaza constitute “genocide,” then the term no longer has any real meaning.
More recently, the ICJ has sought to interfere directly with Israeli military strategy, including by ordering Israel unilaterally to cease military operations in Rafah. Israel is engaged in active combat against a group of medieval radicals who avoid conventional combat and use civilians as military assets. An international legal body should not handcuff soldiers in the field fighting a war that the other side started, particularly given that international body’s consistent political bias.
The world would be a better place without ideological institutions that claim to stand in judgment of warring nations. The United States remains the indispensable nation and the leading force for human rights around the globe, given our nation’s unique ability to project force—whether military, economic, diplomatic, or political.
The United States is committed to human rights because we are a moral people. We also understand that all wars eventually end, and rebuilding is easier if brutality is minimized. It is morality and self-interest—not “rulings” from distant legal bodies—that constrains nations in warfare.
Neither Israel nor the United States can afford to outsource security, and certainly not to international organizations that have come to serve political agendas rather than their founding ideals. Peace can be achieved only through a clear-eyed view of the international system and the skilled use of national power. National interest—not international bureaucracy—is the best path to global stability and prosperity.
Photo by Abdullah Asiran/Anadolu via Getty Images