Summary of Key Points
This article challenges the two extreme perceptions of international law: that it is an absolutely universal moral code or merely a tool of power. It argues that international law is essentially an “art of order” that seeks a dynamic balance among power, justice, and survival—neither a perfect utopia nor a pure adjunct to hegemony. The key lies in distinguishing between two types of differential treatment: one that serves to maintain the viability of the international system (such as distinguishing between legitimate states and terrorists), and another that embodies “double standards” (such as using “humanitarian intervention” to mask geopolitical ambitions).
1. The Exclusionary Undercurrents Beneath International Law’s “Universal Facade”
Modern criticism of international law for its “double standards” often assumes it should treat all countries equally. However, the universality of international law has always been conditional. For example, in the 16th century, Victoria (one of the founders of modern international law) acknowledged that Native Americans had equal rights to Christians but argued that if they refused to trade with the Spanish or practiced cannibalism, Spain could wage a “just war.” This provided a legal basis for differential treatment: judging others by one’s own cultural standards, incorporating what fit and excluding what did not. This notion of “universality” was inherently “our universality,” laying the groundwork for the West to label certain civilizations as threats.
2. Absolute Cultural Relativism Would Turn International Law into a “Ruleless Game”
Some argue that “each civilization has its own rules and should not be judged by Western standards” (for instance, Bartolomé de las Casas defended Native Americans by saying cannibalism was part of their culture). In reality, if cultural relativism were applied to the atrocities of terrorist organizations, the fundamental principles of international law protecting civilians and limiting the brutality of war would be undermined. For example, in the Gaza conflict, if extremist groups did not distinguish between civilians and combatants and such actions were dismissed as a form of resistance, the Geneva Conventions would become meaningless. Therefore, international law must have a minimum standard of order; it is not about asserting cultural superiority but about enabling coexistence among different civilizations, with certain behaviors (such as massacring civilians) being absolutely intolerable.
3. How International Law Evolved from “Theological Morality” to a Tool of National Interests
During the era of Hugo Grotius, international law became more secular, tying it to national interests and commercial expansion. For instance, when the Netherlands sought to break Spain’s maritime monopoly, Grotius used Victoria’s logic to argue that if Spain could harm Native Americans through trade restrictions, the Netherlands could resist in turn. He presented Dutch commercial competition as a defense of “the interests of all humanity,” turning international law into a tool for national agendas. Later, Jean Bodin took this further, redefining war from a “moral crusade” to an “equal duel between sovereign states”—any state, regardless of the justification for war, had the right to fight; pirates and terrorists, however, were considered “enemies of humanity” with no protections. This use of differential treatment was meant to maintain order: if terrorists were treated equally with nations, the world would revert to a state of chaos.
4. Is the “Inequality” in Modern International Law Necessary or Unjust?
Examples like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty show that five nuclear powers are legally permitted to possess nuclear weapons, while others are not. This may seem unfair, but it is based on the need for survival; if nuclear weapons fell into the hands of unstable regimes, the entire international system would be at risk. Such differential treatment is not about moral fairness but about preventing catastrophe. However, this system can be abused; for instance, some countries use nuclear non-proliferation to pressure their rivals while secretly aiding their allies with nuclear technology, which constitutes a form of “double standard” and undermines the legitimacy of international law.
5. How to Distinguish Between “Legitimate Differential Treatment” and “Double Standards”
The key lies in two criteria: purpose (differential treatment should aim to uphold rules, such as distinguishing between combatants and civilians and protecting the innocent) and consistency (rules should not change arbitrarily; for example, the U.S. used the pretext of “weapons of mass destruction” to invade Iraq but turned a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear arsenal). The “art of order” in international law is about finding a balance amidst these contradictions—ensuring that the rules do not become a tool of hegemony nor are rendered ineffective by absolute equality.
In conclusion, international law is neither a panacea nor utterly worthless. Its strength lies in its ability to find a dynamic balance among power, justice, and survival. By understanding this, we can discern in conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine which legal claims are based on reason and which are merely political manipulations.