Power Without Permission: International Law vs Global Power
- Manoj Ambat
- Jan 5
- 5 min read
International law was conceived as a restraint on power. Its purpose was not to moralise global politics, but to prevent the strongest states from imposing their will unchecked. In the aftermath of two world wars, the international community sought to build a system where sovereignty, equality of states, and collective decision-making would replace unilateral coercion.
Yet, in contemporary geopolitics, power increasingly acts without permission. Heads of state are sanctioned, arrested, or isolated without collective mandate. Economic and legal pressure is exerted outside established institutional frameworks. Often, these actions occur without authorisation from global bodies meant to enforce international norms.
This raises a fundamental question for our time: has international law become optional for powerful states?
This article does not defend any individual, country, or ideology. Instead, it examines the structural tension between law and power in the modern international system—and the precedents that tension is creating.
The Original Promise of International Law
International law was never intended to eliminate conflict. It was designed to manage it.
At its core, the post-1945 legal order rested on several foundational principles:
Sovereign equality of states
Non-intervention in internal affairs
Prohibition on the use of force
Collective enforcement through recognised institutions
These principles were not abstract ideals. They were practical responses to historical catastrophe. The aim was simple: prevent unilateral action from destabilising the international system.
The framework assumed that no single state—or group of states—should decide legality on its own. Authority was meant to flow through collective mechanisms, primarily multilateral institutions.
However, international law has always carried an unspoken condition: its effectiveness depends on the consent and restraint of power.
Sovereign Immunity and the Stability of Global Order
One of the most critical doctrines in international law is sovereign immunity, particularly the immunity granted to sitting heads of state.
This principle exists for a reason. A serving head of state is not merely an individual; they embody the legal personality of the state itself. Subjecting such figures to foreign jurisdiction risks turning diplomacy into permanent confrontation.
Traditionally, sovereign immunity ensured:
Continuity of governance
Predictability in international relations
Prevention of retaliatory legal actions
Exceptions were carefully limited and typically required collective authorisation. The goal was to avoid a world where leaders could be detained based on shifting political alignments.
When these safeguards weaken, international stability weakens with them.
The Shift Toward Unilateral Enforcement
In recent decades, the enforcement of international norms has undergone a significant transformation.
Rather than collective, institution-based action, enforcement is increasingly driven by:
Unilateral sanctions regimes
Extraterritorial legal claims
Coalition-based enforcement without universal consent
These actions are often justified as necessary responses to exceptional circumstances. Yet, they bypass the very institutions designed to provide legitimacy and balance.
The critical question is not whether enforcement is sometimes necessary, but who decides when and how law is enforced.
When legality is determined by power rather than process, the distinction between rule-based order and power-based order begins to erode.
Universal Jurisdiction: Idealism and Reality
One of the most frequently cited justifications for unilateral enforcement is the principle of universal jurisdiction. The concept holds that certain crimes are so grave that any state may prosecute them, regardless of where they occurred.
In theory, this principle reflects a commitment to accountability. In practice, it raises serious concerns.
Universal jurisdiction lacks:
Uniform standards of application
Procedural consistency across states
Safeguards against political misuse
Most importantly, it is not applied universally. Some actors face scrutiny, while others remain untouched despite comparable allegations. This inconsistency undermines the moral and legal authority of the principle itself.
Justice that operates selectively risks becoming an instrument rather than a safeguard.
Lawfare: When Law Becomes Strategy
The strategic use of legal mechanisms to achieve political or military objectives is often described as lawfare.
Lawfare does not reject law; it weaponizes it. Instead of bombs or blockades, it employs:
Legal proceedings
Sanctions and asset freezes
Narrative framing through legal language
Its effectiveness lies in its subtlety. Lawfare reshapes legitimacy, isolates leadership, and constrains options without overt force.
However, when law is used primarily as a strategic tool, it ceases to function as a neutral restraint on power. It becomes an extension of power itself.
This transformation represents one of the most significant shifts in modern geopolitics.
Institutional Silence and Structural Paralysis
Equally significant is the role of silence.
In many cases, unilateral enforcement actions proceed without meaningful response from global institutions. This absence of collective voice is often interpreted as neutrality or tacit approval.
In reality, it reflects institutional paralysis.
Global institutions were designed for a different balance of power—one where consensus, or at least managed rivalry, was possible. In a fragmented and transactional international environment, these institutions struggle to assert authority.
When institutions fall silent, legitimacy quietly transfers elsewhere—to power, alliances, and influence.
The Precedent Problem
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of unilateral enforcement is precedent.
Every action taken today becomes a reference point tomorrow. Once certain norms are bypassed, they are difficult to restore.
If sitting heads of state can be subjected to coercive measures without collective authorisation, then:
Sovereign immunity becomes conditional
Diplomatic engagement becomes fragile
Smaller states become more insecure, not safer
Rather than strengthening accountability, such precedents may accelerate fragmentation and mistrust in the global system.
Beyond Ideology: A Structural Issue
This issue is often framed as ideological or civilisational. It is neither.
Powerful states across regions have resisted jurisdiction when it threatened their interests. Sovereignty is defended selectively, not universally.
The real problem is structural: a mismatch between legal frameworks and power realities.
International law struggles not because it is irrelevant, but because it is increasingly enforced asymmetrically.
Strategic Restraint and the Value of Caution
Some states respond to this environment not with confrontation, but with restraint—emphasising dialogue, institutional processes, and long-term stability over immediate enforcement.
This approach is often misunderstood as passivity. In reality, it reflects an understanding of precedent and reciprocity.
Rules weakened today may be unavailable tomorrow, especially to those without overwhelming power.
The Future of Global Order
The international system now stands at a crossroads.
Three paths are visible:
Genuine reform of global institutions
Open acceptance of a power-based order
Continued reliance on selective enforcement under the language of rules
The third option—pretending that rules exist while bypassing them—may be the most destabilising.
History suggests that systems built on selective legitimacy eventually lose credibility altogether.
Conclusion: Power Without Permission
International law was never perfect. But it was never meant to be decorative.
If law applies only when power permits, then it no longer restrains—it rationalises. And when law becomes narrative rather than norm, smaller states do not gain protection; they lose voice.
This analysis does not take sides. It takes precedent, structure, and long-term stability seriously.
Because in global affairs, intentions fade—but precedents endure.
Watch the complete analysis-
Comments