The Interregnum of Law: How International Order Absorbs Its Own Violations

Debates about the future of the international order frequently enough center on the idea of collapse, fueled by geopolitical fragmentation, grate-power rivalry, and institutional paralysis. Many argue that international law, the core of this order, is unraveling alongside it. Though, this narrative assumes a previously coherent and principled regime, suggesting recent failures are temporary deviations. This article argues that what we’re witnessing isn’t a disappearance of legality, but its exposure – a revelation of its enduring entanglement with power and its past roots in imperial structures.

The aggression seen in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan isn’t a new departure, but a continuation of patterns long embedded in a system designed to accommodate hierarchy. Instances like the Suez Crisis, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and the Sino-Vietnamese War demonstrate that aggression isn’t new to the post-UN Charter world. Neither are indirect forms of coercion, illustrating that order has never been free of aberration.What’s different today is the intensity and normalization of these practices,to the point where exceptions increasingly seem like the rule.

We are experiencing an “interregnum” – a liminal period, borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, where the old order is dying and a new one isn’t yet born. in international politics, this means the language of law endures, even as its authority is suspended. The interregnum isn’t a transitional dysfunction; it’s the operative condition of the international order, where legality survives by rendering power intelligible, even acceptable.

This paradox stems from the very ontology of law. From Hobbes’s concept of sovereignty to Schmitt’s decisionism, law has often been understood as an expression of political authority, not an autonomous system. International law’s efficacy depends less on inherent normativity than on the capacity of states to enforce compliance. When that capacity falters, law reveals its dependence on power.

Gramsci’s concept of “passive revolution” clarifies this process. In liminal moments, transformations don’t transcend existing relations, but stabilize them in new forms. International law doesn’t dissolve in the face of violation; it recalibrates, absorbing breaches into evolving doctrines, expanding exceptions like self-defense, and silently ratifying faits accomplis through paralyzed enforcement bodies.This isn’t rupture, but re-articulation, securing continuity through adaptation.

the 2003 invasion of Iraq,built on the precedent of the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo,exemplifies this dynamic. Kosovo’s justification of intervention on “legitimacy” rather than legality destabilized the prohibition on the use of force. Iraq then expanded this disruption, demonstrating that the prohibition could be discarded altogether when conflicting with geopolitical designs.The reinterpretation of UN resolutions and the invocation of “preventive self-defense” were attempts to mask a clear act of aggression.

Crucially, the aftermath of Iraq wasn’t sanction, but absorption. The system survived its most blatant breach, redefining the violation as precedent. The subsequent campaign against ISIS in Syria further cemented this shift, with the “unwilling or unable” doctrine normalizing intervention without full legal basis.

The war in Ukraine reinforces this pattern. While the initial international response affirmed sovereignty and territorial integrity, the realities of war – energy shocks, food insecurity, the cost of support – have shifted the discourse toward the possibility of territorial concessions to Russia. This threatens to normalize the erosion of sovereignty,challenging the foundational principles of the post-1945 order.

The current moment isn’t a collapse of international law, but its exposure. It’s a revelation of law’s duality: normative in language, but fundamentally political in operation.the interregnum isn’t a temporary breakdown, it is the enduring condition of the international order, a system that thrives not on preventing transgressions, but on absorbing and re-articulating them.

How has the evolution of global governance reflected changing geopolitical realities as the Concert of Europe?

Exploring the Framework of Global Governance and Diplomatic Order

The Evolution of Global Governance

Global governance isn’t a single entity, but rather a complex system of institutions, norms, and processes that shape international relations. Its roots lie in past attempts to manage interstate conflict and foster cooperation. Early examples include the Concert of Europe following the Napoleonic Wars, aiming to maintain a balance of power. However, the 20th century witnessed a significant acceleration wiht the creation of the League of Nations after World War I, and more definitively, the United Nations (UN) post-World War II.

Key Milestones:

League of Nations (1920-1946): First major attempt at collective security.

United Nations (1945-Present): Cornerstone of modern global governance.

Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF, World Bank): Focused on economic stability and growth.

World Trade Organization (WTO): Regulates international trade.

Forms of Modern Diplomacy:

Bilateral Diplomacy: Direct negotiations between two states.

Multilateral Diplomacy: Negotiations involving multiple states, often within international organizations.

Public Diplomacy: Engaging directly with foreign publics to promote national interests.

Digital Diplomacy: Utilizing digital platforms for communication and engagement.

Track II Diplomacy: Informal, unofficial dialogues involving non-governmental actors.

The United Nations System: the most comprehensive IO, encompassing a wide range of specialized agencies (WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF) addressing global issues.

Regional Organizations: (EU,ASEAN,African Union) Focus on regional cooperation and integration.

Financial Institutions: (IMF, World Bank, Regional Development Banks) Provide financial assistance and promote economic development.

Specialized Agencies: (WTO, ITU, WIPO) Address specific technical or functional areas.

The effectiveness of IOs is frequently enough debated. Challenges include bureaucratic inefficiencies, political gridlock, and the dominance of powerful states. However, they remain indispensable for addressing transnational issues like climate change, pandemics, and economic crises. The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report (currently benchmarking 2025 data) exemplifies how IOs track progress on critical global issues, informing policy and driving accountability.

Great Power Competition: Renewed rivalry between major powers (US, China, Russia) is undermining multilateralism and increasing geopolitical tensions.

Rise of Nationalism and Populism: Challenges to international cooperation and a preference for unilateral action.

Transnational Threats: Climate change, pandemics, terrorism, and cybercrime require collective action but are often hampered by national interests.

Erosion of International Law: Selective application of international law and disregard for international institutions.

Technological Disruption: New technologies (AI, biotechnology) pose ethical and security challenges that require global regulation.

These challenges necessitate a re-evaluation of existing governance mechanisms and a search for innovative solutions. strengthening multilateral institutions, promoting inclusive diplomacy, and fostering greater international cooperation are crucial for navigating these turbulent times.

case Study: The Iran nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany), provides a compelling case study in the complexities of global governance.The deal aimed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief.

Key Aspects:

Demonstrates the potential of multilateral diplomacy to address complex security challenges.

Highlights the fragility of international agreements in the face of changing political dynamics (US withdrawal in 2018).

Illustrates the importance of verification mechanisms and international monitoring.

* Serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of unilateral action and the erosion of trust.

The JCPOA’s fate underscores the challenges of maintaining a rules-based international order in a world characterized by shifting power dynamics and competing national interests.

Practical Tips for