{"id":15385,"date":"2025-07-20T17:48:27","date_gmt":"2025-07-20T16:48:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/londonpost.news\/?p=15385"},"modified":"2025-07-20T18:25:26","modified_gmt":"2025-07-20T17:25:26","slug":"war-peace-the-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brusselsindependent.com\/fr\/analysis\/war-peace-the-law\/2025\/07\/20\/admin1\/","title":{"rendered":"WAR, PEACE & THE LAW"},"content":{"rendered":"

By: Prof. Shabnam Delfani<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe rule of law is not just a normative aspiration\u2014it is a necessity for peace.\u201d
\nUN Security Council Resolution 2286 (2016)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Legal Illusion of Order<\/strong><\/p>\n

We often imagine law as a moral compass in the chaos of war. But too often, it is a mirage a language of legitimacy used by the powerful to justify destruction and silence dissent. International legal frameworks, heralded as guardians of peace, are more frequently deployed to authorize aggression<\/strong> than to restrain it.<\/p>\n

Take UN Charter Article 2(4)<\/strong>, which forbids the use of force\u2014except for self-defence under Article 51<\/strong> or with Security Council approval<\/strong>. In theory, this should prevent unilateral wars. In practice, it’s an escape clause. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (2003)<\/strong> cited Resolution 678 (1990)<\/strong>\u2014passed for a different war in a different decade as its legal justification. This is not law as protection. It is law as performance.<\/p>\n

Justice Deferred, Justice Denied<\/strong><\/p>\n

Peace agreements, too, often exchange justice for political convenience. Amnesty deals<\/strong>, power-sharing arrangements<\/strong>, and transitional justice mechanisms<\/strong> tend to shield warlords rather than empower survivors. The Colombian Peace Accord (2016)<\/strong> is celebrated for ending a 50-year conflict, but critics rightly ask: who was held accountable? Victims\u2019 voices remain marginal. UNSC Resolution 1325<\/strong>, which mandates women\u2019s inclusion in peace processes, is cited endlessly in reports\u2014but rarely followed on the ground.<\/p>\n

Legal instruments are deployed not to interrogate violence<\/strong>, but to sanitize it<\/strong>. Civil society\u2019s role is limited to post-hoc observation rather than participation in shaping outcomes. The law remains a closed club\u2014interpreted by elites, implemented by governments, and rarely challenged from below.<\/p>\n

When Law Betrays Its Promise<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nowhere is the betrayal clearer than in the rise of \u201csecurity legislation\u201d<\/strong> across Eurasia and beyond. Anti-terror laws<\/strong>, once crafted to protect civilians, now target journalists<\/strong>, dissidents<\/strong>, and activists<\/strong>. Vaguely worded statutes criminalize peaceful protest, shut down media outlets, and expand surveillance powers without oversight.<\/p>\n

In Kazakhstan<\/strong>, anti-extremism laws have been used to suppress civic groups. In Turkey<\/strong>, anti-terror provisions are routinely applied to Kurdish politicians and human rights defenders. Here, law doesn\u2019t fail\u2014it functions exactly as designed<\/strong>: to consolidate state power and suppress resistance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Civil Society: Resistance Within the System<\/strong><\/p>\n

Still, the legal system is not beyond salvage. Civil society groups<\/strong>, legal scholars<\/strong>, and activist lawyers<\/strong> are increasingly using the law against itself. In Germany<\/strong>, a Yemeni family successfully challenged the U.S. drone program via litigation tied to Ramstein Air Base. In Myanmar<\/strong>, diaspora legal groups have filed international cases against military leaders for crimes against humanity.<\/p>\n

These are not isolated acts of idealism, they are survival strategies. But such efforts remain underfunded, under protected, and strategically fragmented. Without broader institutional support and legal empowerment, these pockets of resistance cannot offset the global erosion of accountability<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Real Modern Threats<\/strong><\/p>\n

The legal community has also failed to grapple with emerging forms of warfare<\/strong>. Cyberattacks<\/strong>, climate-induced resource conflict<\/strong>, and AI-enabled surveillance regimes<\/strong> have outpaced existing legal frameworks. Water disputes in Central Asia<\/strong> and South Asia<\/strong> risk escalation, yet few enforceable norms govern shared ecological resources. The UN\u2019s \u201cOur Common Agenda\u201d (2021)<\/strong> calls for responsive, inclusive governance, but its impact remains more aspirational than actionable.<\/p>\n

Time to Break the Monopoly<\/strong><\/p>\n

The problem is not that law is weak. The problem is that it is monopolized<\/strong>, by states, by international institutions, and by diplomatic compromises that favour short-term stability over long-term justice. Legal pluralism<\/strong>\u2014which includes grassroots voices, indigenous frameworks, and local civic actors\u2014is not a luxury. It\u2019s a necessity.<\/p>\n

Until we democratize access to law<\/strong>, peace will remain transactional, justice will remain selective, and the global legal order will remain a shield for some and a sword against others.<\/p>\n

REFERENCED FRAMEWORKS & CASES<\/strong><\/p>\n