Some No Longer Feel Compelled to Justify Military Action by Citing International Law and Some Who’ve Benefited from Its Provisions are Going Along, Bogush Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Mar. 6 – A profoundly disturbing trend is taking place in international discourse, Gleb Bogush says. Until very recently, most governments taking military action felt the need to justify what they were doing by referring to international law, however implausible and unconvincing their references to its provisions were.

            But now, ever fewer governments feel any need to do so, the Russian scholar at the University of Cologne in Germany says; and indeed, both they and some in their own populations welcome this change as a sign that they can act as they like on the basis of power relations alone (ru.themoscowtimes.com/2026/03/06/pcheli-protiv-meda-strannaya-radost-po-povodu-razrusheniya-mezhdunarodnogo-prava-a189023).

            And what may be even more disturbing is a related development: many who have benefited from the provisions of international law such as Russian liberals aren’t objecting to this failure to follow international law even though they have been the beneficiaries of other provisions of international law themselves.

            This combination is destroying international law, the Russian scholar continues; and “’the brave new world’ in which only force matters will hardly be a kingdom of freedom. It will simly be a world of illegality – and in this world, international law no longer will be able to defend anyone, neither the state, nor the opposition, nor human rights.”

              Bogush points out that international law as codified by the United Nations allows the use of force in only two cases: in response to an armed attack and if approved by the UN Security Council. Neither has been true in many cases of armed attack in recent years and so it is not surprising that those behind such attacks don’t want to talk about international law.

            What a few of them have done is talk about something they call “preventive self-defense,” but however emotionally satisfying that is, “in international law, such a basis for the use of force simply doesn’t exist; and talk about humanitarian intervention unless it is strictly limited also has not legal justification.

            As Bogush notes, “international law doesn’t permit states to kill and suppress their own citizens; but from this it doesn’t follow that other states have the right to do this instead of them. Otherwise, a right to conduct war will appear, from which humanity, it had appeared, had with justice rejected in the 20^th century.”

            At present, he continues, “in a majority of commentaries [on various current wars], international law has simply disappeared from any discussion. Most often arguments are made that international law is not absolute and is even out of date when one is speaking about dictatorial regimes.”

            That formulation is “convenient, but it is untrue,” Bogush says because “international law doesn’t ‘defend’ dictators. They are defended by the inaction of states and in part they are directly supported by others. Authoritarian regimes are becoming ever more numerous” since “an aggressive foreign policy, wars and militarization are fatal for democracy.”

            Unfortunately, some who have benefited from international law are now joining the ranks of those who think it is perfectly acceptable to ignore that law when they want to. Among those, Bogush says, are some “among Russian liberals” even though their claims and rights are typically based on appeals to international legal principles.

            For reasons that are far from clear, “they suppose that in ‘this brave new world’ they will thus turn out to be on the side of the strong – and that these ‘strongmen’ also for reasons that are unclear, will respect their rights and interests.” At the very least, they are mistaken; and worse, they are likely to destroy the basis for their own claims and protections.

            Their position is “not simply strange” but horrifying, Bogush concludes, because it is “a classic case of when the bees begin to fight against honey.”