Kimiaki Kawai
Profile:
Kawai is a researcher with expertise in International Humanitarian Law. After serving as Director of the Soka Gakkai Peace Committee until October 2019, he worked as Research Fellow at the Toda Peace Institute before assuming his current position in April 2023. Kawai participated in the UN Conference to negotiate the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in July 2017 as a member of civil society while serving in the secretariat for the Japan NGO Network for Nuclear Weapons Abolition. He holds a Master of Arts in Political Science from Aoyama Gakuin University and PhD from Graduate School of Global Humanities and Social Sciences, Nagasaki University.
What would the world look like without international law? A powerful state could invade another using military force or monopolize maritime resources without rules to stop it. The stronger could impose unfair trade conditions on the weaker or cause environmental harm to neighboring states without any accountability. One of the reasons international law exists is to prevent such situations. However, unlike domestic societies, international society lacks a centralized government. Consequently, international law has inherent limitations, and when national sovereignty conflicts with international legal norms, national interests may take precedence, and international law may not be upheld. Nevertheless, international law plays a crucial role in maintaining the global order. It provides a foundation for “dialogue.”
Let us consider the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This case raises the question of whether international law can restrain the actions of sovereign states. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force, yet it could not stop Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Moreover, because Russia holds veto power, the UN Security Council was unable to take action. For this reason, some may argue that international law is meaningless. However, if international law were truly meaningless, why did Russia attempt to justify its aggression of Ukraine? This is because international society operates on the premise of respecting rules by engaging in “dialogue” based on legal norms. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution affirming that Russia’s actions were in violation of Article 2(4). This, too, constituted a form of “dialogue” with Russia, albeit through the mechanism of a General Assembly resolution. Furthermore, many states have imposed sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Russia based on international law in response to its actions. Such international reactions are clear evidence that international law does have an influence.
We can also consider the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Climate change is a transboundary issue that cannot be resolved by national sovereignty. If issues such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions were confined within a single state, international law might not be necessary. However, because climate change affects all states, common rules across the international society are essential. Under the Paris Agreement, states set their own reduction targets, report their progress, and work together within a framework aimed at improvement. This is another example of how international law, established through “dialogue,” facilitates cooperation among states.
In an international society without a central government, international law is far from perfect. Sovereign states may interpret it arbitrarily or even violate it. Still, international law serves as a foundation for “dialogue” and plays a vital role in sustaining peace and stability. A world without rules would be one governed solely by power. Today’s international society neither desires nor accepts such a world. International law is currently being challenged by international politics. In some cases, it faces the risk of being dismantled. “But if it is destroyed, we will be the worse for it.”—Ian Brownlie. In the international arena, “dialogue” between law and politics is essential.