Lorenzo Maria Pacini
The transition process is already underway. The great work of development is in our hands. It is up to us to decide to become part of it.
Preface: this article is a prelude to an academic publication that will soon be edited by myself, the excellent Italian jurist and expert in international law, Vincenzo Pellegrino, and the French-Lebanese lawyer Elie Hatem. Stay tuned, it will be a monumental work.
The current system no longer works
In the context of a world that is increasingly moving towards a multipolar configuration-a reality composed of multiple sovereign decision-making poles, each expressing a distinct civilization and bearing its own value system rooted in its history and culture-the inadequacy of the current international legal system in regulating and harmonizing relations between global actors is becoming increasingly evident.
In fact, what we call "International Law" is the legal configuration that was imposed in New York by the League of Nations, later renamed the UN, based on certain criteria of political supremacy: on the one hand, the U.S., as a British colony, had the guarantee of the largest empire still in force at the beginning of the 20th century; the elite of Ashkenazi and Sephardic high finance gathered in New York, ensuring the long-term administration of the markets; no other country in the world was able to compete on an international level in the same way, so Anglo-American primacy was effectively a strategic advantage.
From this perspective, it is clear that the urgency of developing a new international legal paradigm capable of evolving in step with global transformation has not yet been adequately understood. The current model, which is heavily Western-centric, tends to marginalize other regulatory traditions around the world, granting them little or no recognition. This inevitably generates structural systemic instability, exacerbated by the emergence of multipolarism, leading to a growing number of conflicts and tensions. A reform of international law is therefore essential if it is to truly fulfill its function of guaranteeing peace and promoting global development.
Many civilizations-understood as communities sharing the same spiritual, cultural, historical, and symbolic heritage, recognized consciously by their members, regardless of nationality, social class, or ideology-are today showing a growing interest in emancipating themselves, having long been subjected to the political and economic hegemony of the West, and are beginning to demand genuine autonomy and full dignity on the international stage.
At the same time, the very notion of the state as the main subject of international law is being redefined. The Westphalian order, first, and then the Paris order, are collapsing. Civilization now tends to transcend state borders, taking the form of a "great space" that is becoming increasingly important in international dynamics. However, legal studies that depart from the Western-centric approach are still few and far between and are clearly insufficient to adequately address this transformation, especially given the real risk of a "clash of civilizations," as predicted by Samuel Huntington. In such a scenario, we could see many governments progressively rejecting the binding authority of international law, which is increasingly perceived as an instrument of Western control.
At the height of its crisis, the West is becoming less and less open to contributions from other parts of the world, seeking to protect what remains of its dominance of meaning. It is clear that the absence of a shared consensus on the rules of coexistence between states risks leading to a renewed resort to force as the only means of resolving disputes.
This has been the practice for a long time: the logic of the strongest as ruler and regulator.
With the rise of civilizations as new supranational actors, fundamental questions arise: the concept of sovereignty, the definition of universal principles common to all civilizations, the relationship between international law and domestic law, the role of international custom in the transition to a multipolar system, the reformulation of the concept of force and the rules governing its use, the legal regulation of relations between great spaces, and, finally, the redefinition of the basis of the binding nature of international law.
One of the most obvious signs of the transition from a unipolar system dominated in the aftermath of the Cold War to a multipolar one is the emergence and strengthening of new regional international organizations. These structures, which already appear to be the future "decision-making poles" of the multipolar world, do not merely represent local interests: they propose alternative approaches to development and international cooperation, often in contrast with the Euro-Atlantic guidelines of the past. The consolidation of these organizations raises questions about their integration into the international cooperation system represented by the United Nations. Surprisingly, the UN system seems to be open to these new actors, admitting some representatives from transnational entities of various kinds, such as the SCO or the Eurasian Economic Community.
In this context, among the new approaches to international law, the contribution of the group of scholars gathered under the acronym TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law) deserves attention: this movement proposes a critical re-reading of the history of international law, highlighting its colonial roots and its role, still today, in maintaining Western supremacy.
The first generation of TWAIL jurists were committed to giving a voice to the so-called 'Third World' in the context of the new post-UN legal architecture, insisting on the need for a truly universal law that takes into account multiple points of view. The second generation emphasized that the entire structure of modern international law has been marked from its inception by the encounter (or clash) with colonialism. It is in this context that the so-called "dynamics of difference" took shape: first, thanks to the cultural justification of the civilizing mission at the beginning of colonialism, then with the establishment of mandates and trusteeships with state purposes, and finally with the imposition of global economic instruments such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
There is therefore an urgent need to reinterpret and apply international law from different perspectives through a comparison of the various legal systems of the world, which could bring out points of convergence capable of giving rise to normative meanings more in line with the concrete reality of peoples and their cultures, thus redefining the current Euro-American hegemony in a more equitable and pluralistic sense.
Towards a new paradigm?
The traditional view of international law is based on the idea that it constitutes a system of objective principles and neutral rules, deriving from the will of states, either through formal treaties or through customs.
According to this approach, states are the main subjects of international law, and a legal norm is considered binding only if it passes a rigorous test of legal validity. Extra-legal considerations-economic, social, moral, or political-are generally excluded from the analysis, as are values and purposes. The system is thus conceived as unitary and self-sufficient, capable of always providing a correct legal response to the problems that arise.
This is not a proposal for a complete or definitive theory, but rather the beginning of a journey. And every journey, to be solid, must start with the method. Therefore, the method by which international law as we know it was created should be reviewed. The term 'method' derives from the Greek methodos, which combines meta (beyond) and hodos (way), and can be translated as 'way to go beyond'. It is this 'beyond' that our work aims to achieve.
There are many factors that can no longer be ignored. Imperialism has been one of the foundations, whether explicit or hidden, of modern international law. In this regard, it is not superfluous to clarify what is meant by imperialism: it is a formal or informal relationship through which one state exercises control over the effective sovereignty of another political entity. This domination can be exercised through force, political cooperation, or social, economic, or cultural dependencies. In short, imperialism is the politics or process of building and managing an empire.
A critical reading of the founders of international law reveals a deeply imperialist imprint from the very beginning. For a long time (centuries, not years), colonial violence was disguised as humanitarian intervention or defensive action, helping to construct powerful narratives that would permeate the theoretical and practical development of international law. In the 19th century, positivist doctrine and the concept of sovereignty further reinforced the distinction between 'civilized' and 'uncivilized' countries, justifying the conquest of territories defined as terrae nullius because they were inhabited by peoples 'devoid' of civilization. Sovereignty thus became the ultimate measure of civilization. Even today, we hear talk of "peace missions" or "peacekeeping" adopted by the UN and imposed in specific areas of the world, coincidentally those that belonged to the old classification under the heading of "third world," or peoples lacking that Western value system which, by virtue of the law of the strongest, was considered the best.
The mandate system established by the League of Nations formalized a mechanism of legal administrative control that aimed to produce results functional to the interests of the West. The nation-state paradigm was imposed on a mosaic of diverse communities in the name of Western civilization, and inclusion came at the price of erasing difference. Even when the countries of the global South acquired the formal requirements of statehood, they continued to perceive themselves as "insufficient." This is the mechanism of the dynamics of difference: the subordinate entity always perceives itself as lagging behind, backward, committed to bridging a "gap" created by the very dichotomy between civilization and barbarism, between development and underdevelopment.
In light of all this, it is clear that current international law, structured on an imperial paradigm, is incompatible with the emerging multipolar logic. Imperialism, in fact, is the antithesis of multipolarism.
The path we intend to follow starts from this recognition. The multipolar world represents a radical alternative to the dominant unipolar order, as it affirms the existence of multiple sovereign and independent decision-making centers capable of exercising strategic influence at the global level. These centers must not submit to the universalism of Western values and norms, nor must they reject Western legal experience outright: rather, they must build a legal order that reflects the plurality of legal cultures on the planet.
A multipolar international law must be based on this plurality, constantly evolving and capable of adapting to the new challenges of the contemporary world. It will be a law that does not start from imposed universalism, but from the recognition of difference, the coexistence of systems, and dialogue between civilizations.
Multipolar sovereignty with civilization-states
Traditionally, sovereignty is understood as the exclusive power of the state to govern internally (jus vitae ac necis) and to exclude external interference (jus excludendi alios). It is historically based on the Westphalian principle, which guarantees each state exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and places states on an equal legal footing.
However, from the perspective of multipolar international law, this concept is considered outdated. The formal sovereignty of nation states is no longer sufficient if it is not backed by real strategic, political, and economic power. The Westphalian system, although still existing de jure, no longer reflects today's reality.
The new vision proposes shifting the foundation of sovereignty from the state to the individual, understood as the sole sovereign subject of oneself. In this perspective, it makes no sense to speak of a "transfer" of sovereignty, since it is innate to human beings. Instead, we speak of sharing sovereignty: individuals pool their sovereignty to build an international system based on equality between legal subjects.
This leads to a number of consequences:
- No state can claim a hegemonic role;
- Cultural diversity between civilizations is valued;
- The relationship between the state and the individual within each legal civilization changes;
- The role of the individual in international law grows.
Consequently, every Civilization State has two obligations:
- To participate actively in the development of the international community for the common good;
- To recognize the legitimacy of the form of government of other Civilization States, provided that it does not violate the fundamental principles shared by the general legal order. It is not acceptable to impose standards based on a single culture.
Remodeling the use of force
The prohibition of the use of force is based on two approaches: an idealistic one, aimed at promoting "universal peace," and a more pragmatic one, which aims to control conflicts through the limitation of the use of weapons. The principle of non-use of force is seen as a means of preventing the abuse of power by stronger states, but the geopolitical reality often challenges this principle, with great powers seeking to circumvent the prohibition in order to pursue their imperialist interests.
The concept of international wrongdoing is described as the violation of an international norm by a state, without the need to prove fault or damage, but only the infringement of a subjective right of another state. International responsibility entails the obligation for the state that has violated the norm to respond to the consequences of its wrongdoing.
In the context of a multipolar world, international law will have to evolve, not only to limit the use of military force, but also to extend the concept of "force" to include political, economic, and cultural actions that could destabilize or interfere in the internal affairs of other states. The new multipolar system establishes that any intervention in internal or international affairs will be considered a violation. The international community will have to adopt non-violent measures to resolve disputes between states, with the possibility of isolating states involved in a conflict if they do not comply with collective decisions. The only exception would be if a group of states requested help to defend the fundamental principles of the international system. The text therefore proposes a new international paradigm that promotes cooperation and the sharing of sovereignty, rejecting imperialism.
Great spaces must be reconsidered
The concept of 'great space' is understood as a coherent operational area, closely linked to a civilisation, which asserts itself in response to changes in the geopolitical and cultural dimension of the contemporary world. In a multipolar vision, where several civilisations coexist and cooperate, these great spaces represent fundamental units of organisation and shared sovereignty, each based on an autonomous internal legal order but open to external collaboration.
To give legal form to this model, it will first be necessary to consider that all civilizations share the same planet and must therefore conceive their legal structures within this common boundary; secondly, that the number of great spaces will necessarily be limited and defined on the basis of cultural, social, and geographical affinities.
There are three cornerstones: the independence of states within each great space; the absolute prohibition of colonization in any form, whether cultural, economic, or military; and the non-intervention of external powers in internal conflicts. Each great space is therefore a protected entity, acting freely according to the will of the civilization-states that compose it.
To ensure a stable and lasting order, the idea of adopting the balance of payments as a fundamental legal principle is put forward. This principle would serve to prevent economic imbalances between states and civilizations, which have historically generated tensions and conflicts. To support this balance, it would also be interesting to create an exclusively interbank currency, without a reserve function, serving only as a unit of account between economies, promoting stability without consolidating power relations-and today, whether we like it or not, cryptocurrencies make this monetary transition very easy.
History has shown that major changes in international law have occurred in the wake of global crises that sought to avoid the repetition of traumatic events. 'Emergencies' have accelerated such changes, but in this case, the use of force can no longer be freely resorted to, and therefore reliance is placed on custom, the oldest foundation of international law. Custom, which is based on uniform and binding practices, is seen as the path to a transition to a multipolar international law.
The transition process is already underway. The great work of development is in our hands. It is up to us to decide to become part of it.