The primacy of law

Mélida Hodgson, president of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), the association of professors, scholars, jurists, and government officials who study international law and relations (not only American), has published a forceful statement entitled The United States and the International Rule of Law. The concise page opens with a highly effective sentence: "In its 120-year history, ASIL has advanced a vision of international relations based on two simple ideas: law and justice."

Rule of Law is an expression that in Italian (and French) is usually translated as "rule of law," but this does not fully convey its deeper meaning. It would be better, in fact, to speak of the "rule of law," of "the law that governs," of the "primacy of law"—in short, of a political and institutional reality governed by law, in which law is placed above all else. Well, this statement by President ASIL is a strong reaffirmation of the rights of law (which is the title of this column in Nuovo Progetto).

The text states that the modern international legal order "is now under direct attack, both domestically and abroad. The list of US initiatives undermining the international legal order is long, and includes: the proposed forcible transfer of two million Palestinians out of Gaza; direct threats to the sovereignty and integrity of a growing list of countries and territories; the sudden and procedurally incorrect withdrawal from international institutions and instruments, such as the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement on climate change; ignoring binding legal obligations towards asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants; as well as the withdrawal of foreign aid appropriated by the United States Congress—assistance that alleviates suffering, saves lives, promotes American values, and makes America safer. Furthermore, "the use of sanctions against the International Criminal Court to punish people who work to safeguard international law is pernicious [...]. Those who work with or for the International Criminal Court, a court established to hold accountable for the most serious crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression—perform a critical function for the free world."

On both sides of the Atlantic, disturbing winds are blowing of statements and actions by governments that have chosen to oppose politics to law and justice. The justification offered is the same everywhere: we are elected by the people and therefore called to make choices that cannot encounter obstacles. In particular, it is claimed that political actions are not subject to judicial review. The elected politician, that is, must be able to go his own way and must not be hindered by nuisances such as "law," "legal norms," "judgments." In Washington, as in some European capitals, there is a sense of intolerance for anything that smacks of the Rule of Law. Not only that, but, more generally, the Rule of Law, fundamental freedoms, human rights, and democracy are the object of reactions of annoyance, impatience, derision, if not outright hostility. In Washington, on January 6, four years ago, the current president of the United States supported a subversive act. Since his first presidency, he has promoted violations of human rights, including those of refugees and migrants. He attacks and delegitimizes multilateralism and international institutions. A few days ago, the same unspeakable individual seriously offended international law and diplomacy, going so far as to humiliate, before the world, a head of state who was trying to assert the rights of an attacked state and a country "tortured" for three years (to use the effective expression that Pope Francis has tirelessly repeated for three years).

International law protects the "territorial integrity" and "political independence" of states. Soviet Tsar Putin has attacked a sovereign state, and the world is watching. The White House bully receives the attacked head of state, humiliates him, and passes on the message: "Bow your head, get out of my way; the fate of your country will be decided by the aggressor and by me." As in September 1938 in Munich, the victim (then Czechoslovakia) is asked to stay put, outside the door, because the logic of the powerful's strength is effectively accompanied by a distaste for the rule of law. The same goes for the Palestinians. The Israeli prime minister recognizes the President of the United States as his sole interlocutor, and together they are trying to shape a future that will only increase hatred and division. And yet, European sovereignists (led by the Hungarian leader Orban) happily align themselves with this political shift and the attacks on everything that evokes the Rule of Law, rules, principles, and values. At the UN, the United States voted with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea, against Ukraine, the European Union, and the majority of the world's states. Autocrats like Sultan Erdogan, Indian nationalist Modi, and Tehran's despot Khamenei are happy to align themselves.

The world today, more than ever, hungers for peace, security, and justice. We must never cease to shout to every autocrat (and those who aspire to become one) that these are impossible without a convinced adherence to all that the Rule of Law means and implies.


Edoardo Greppi
NP April 2025