• 'I don’t think it’s too late,' Satterthwaite says despite erosion, arguing that states can still 'insist that this rules-based order is the one that we must insist on'

GENEVA 

Across continents, the language of international law remains intact. In practice, however, the rules meant to constrain states are facing growing strain.

Tariffs are increasingly deployed as political leverage. Economic sanctions have expanded beyond governments to target individuals, including international judges and prosecutors. International court rulings are challenged or ignored. Territorial claims and coercive diplomacy have resurfaced in multiple regions.

Tools once embedded in multilateral frameworks are now frequently used as instruments of pressure.

Under Donald Trump’s presidency, the US has intervened in Venezuela, sought to take control of Greenland, threatened punitive tariffs against several Western allies, sanctioned international judges and prosecutors, and grown distant from UN bodies established to uphold international law and multilateralism.

Together, the developments have fueled debate over whether the post-World War II rules-based order, built on the idea that law restrains power, is entering a deeper phase of erosion.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Anadolu in an interview that the trend is unmistakable.

"I think we have to be very clear-eyed and say that yes, we are seeing an erosion of the rules-based order," she said.

"There's no question that this is happening, and I think it's also obvious that certain powers are doing their best to advance the deterioration of the rules-based order."

At the same time, she acknowledged that the rules-based order "had double standards" and was "not always fair to everyone," saying the moment offers a chance to reassess which parts "truly delivered fairness and equity for all, and those that failed on that front."

Law used as leverage

Even areas traditionally governed by detailed legal frameworks, including trade and economic relations, are increasingly being used coercively, she argued.

Satterthwaite called it "one of the ironies of this moment," noting that states that once invested heavily in creating rules around trade and economic power are now "contravening them."

Still, she argued that selective compliance does not mean the norms themselves have disappeared. States "use them as a sword, but not as a shield," she said, adding: "That means the norm is still there."

She pointed to the prohibition on torture as an example, noting governments rarely deny the rule itself but instead deny violating it, and evidence, she said, is that the legal standard remains recognized even when breached.

Smaller states 'most' vulnerable to power politics

For smaller and less powerful countries, weakening respect for international law could carry serious consequences. Historically, such states have relied on legal protections rather than military or economic strength.

She warned that a system where power overrides law would "harm small states most, states that turned their efforts away from militarism," saying it would "divide the world again into the powerful and the powerless."

Satterthwaite argued that the global rule of law has long served as a safeguard for weaker nations, saying it "has protected the most vulnerable and the weakest states."

The rapporteur said the principle of reciprocity, under which the law applies equally to all sovereign states, benefits everyone.

"That norm actually helps every state," she said, warning that even powerful countries "would lose a great deal" if it breaks down.

International courts still matter for rules-based order

Moves such as sanctions targeting international judges and prosecutors, along with open defiance of international judicial decisions, have raised questions about whether the courts that enforce the rules-based order are losing influence. Satterthwaite rejected the idea that they have become merely symbolic despite attempts.

"I would say there’s an attempt to sideline them," she said, adding that the International Court of Justice "will continue to do its work."

She made a similar argument about the ICC, pointing to ongoing cases and arrests as evidence that the court still carries weight.

"I don’t think the US government would have sanctioned the judges and prosecutors, nor would Russia have found them guilty in absentia, if they didn’t find what the court is doing to be very important," she said. "They know that it matters in the world."

"It's not so easy to push them to the side, even if certain actors are hoping to be able to do so," she added.

Even when courts struggle to enforce their decisions or take custody of suspects, she acknowledged that their authority can at times appear "largely symbolic."

However, she argued their impact goes beyond that, saying rulings still "cast a clear statement" that there is evidence individuals may be responsible for grave crimes. While the court’s power may sometimes be limited in practice, she added, it retains "very real coercive power" in other cases.

Not too late to defend rules-based order

Despite the erosion she highlighted, Satterthwaite said the trajectory is not irreversible.

"I don’t think it’s too late," she said, arguing that states can still "insist that this rules-based order is the one that we must insist on."

She urged governments that value international law to take a more assertive leadership role, saying some are already speaking out and trying to chart a path that keeps legal norms and core values at the center of foreign policy.

"My message is for the states that continue to believe international law is there for their benefit, and for everyone’s benefit, to really step up and take that risk," she said.

"This difficult moment calls for real bravery."