when force overrides international law

I’m sorry to repeat, but criticizing the theory of geopolitical realism does not constitute an exercise in naive idealism. It is, on the contrary, a matter of remembering three fundamental dimensions of relations between States. First, that peace must be the basic principle of international order. Second, that the United Nations Charter – even though it needs to be updated in terms of representation and the functioning of the Security Council – it must be scrupulously respected. Third, the power of military force cannot, and should not, override the force of International Law. The world is not a ring of boxingnor a gladiatorial arena, where the strongest invariably wins.

The central error of the so-called “political realism” lies in reducing the State to the role of a single actor, ignoring democratic practices. Institutions, citizens’ associations, economic agents, media and intellectuals are devalued or instrumentalized as mere pawns of power. Oppositions are diminished in their rights, as normal alternatives in democracy. In reality, this so-called realism, which is nothing more than a form of political reductionism, opens the doors to absolute and arbitrary power, even in apparently consolidated democracies.

A leader, when he faces the world only through the lever of force and military aggression, lives anchored in other times, has his mental roots buried in the past. He puts himself outside the law and calls it pragmatism. He ignores – or pretends to ignore – that there is a before and after 1945, and that the world has changed radically since the end of the Cold War. When you talk about “negotiations”, you are actually referring to the submission of the weakest to the will of the strongest. In the 19th century, this practice was called “ultimatum”. Today, it appears under the cover of a dense “geopolitical fog”. The lack of visibility allows for a game without clear rules. Diplomacy is captured to gain time, sow confusion – between adversaries and public opinion – and prepare, in the shadows, the logistics of war. Can we trust, today and tomorrow, such a leader?