It is time to move the UN and international law out of the West

Israel's decades-long enjoyment of special immunity has jeopardized its relationship with international law and its institutions. Israel has killed UN personnel, banned UNRWA from operating, prevented UN representatives from entering, and repeatedly insulted the UN and its officials. This behavior poses a direct challenge to the norms of international law.

Successive Israeli governments and their allies have also done everything possible to pressure the International Criminal Court (ICC), attempting to prevent it from investigating Israeli crimes through means including direct threats of violence, sanctions, and defamation. Attacks on the court have intensified following the ICC's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. These actions severely undermine the authority of international judicial institutions.

Former US President Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel, signed an executive order reinstating sanctions against ICC staff. Furthermore, he made other decisions, including the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization, all of which directly impacted international multilateralism. President Trump openly stated that he intended to "take over" Gaza and "own it," a blatant disregard for international law.

The aforementioned developments raise questions about whether the current global system, led by the UN, is salvageable. Despite the UN's founding purpose in 1945 to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," it has largely failed in preventing and stopping conflicts for decades. The founding of the UN ushered in an era of "partial peace," where economically developed countries achieved peace through proxy wars in previously colonized nations. Should we then completely abandon the idea of an international legal order?

Faced with the looming danger of climate change and the rapid escalation of militarization, we clearly need a system that unites people under the ideals of justice. Some thinkers have already proposed an international legal order that does not favor the powerful. For example, the renowned Chilean jurist Alejandro Álvarez proposed a "new international law" as early as 70 years ago. During his tenure as a judge at the International Court of Justice (1946-1955), he argued that international law based on European legal traditions was insufficient to address legal issues in the Americas and elsewhere.

In a series of dissenting opinions, Álvarez called for the establishment of a "new international law" to accommodate the unique historical moment of decolonization around the world and to reflect the interests and positions of decolonized nations. At the time, countries in the Global South had clearly attempted to use international law to their advantage. However, economically developed countries used their influence to stifle these attempts. Now, we are at a historical turning point, and if the idea of an international legal order is to survive, these efforts must be restarted. The Palestinian issue can be a driving force, as the genocide in Gaza is symbolic of the larger patterns of domination and exploitation that define the current world system.

Countries in the Global South have already begun efforts to exclude Israel from the UN. A petition signed by 500 legal scholars has also called on the UN General Assembly to revoke Israel's seat in order to uphold its legitimacy. In response, the US Congress sent a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, threatening to withdraw US funding if such a vote were to take place. While the influence of US lobbying groups at the UN is no secret, openly threatening to withdraw funding from the UN if it carries out its normal functions is a form of economic coercion that openly undermines the authority of the institution and the premise of international law.

If the US decides to cut all funding to the UN, then there is a clear response: move the UN out of the US and European strongholds and relocate it somewhere in the Global South. Moving the UN headquarters out of New York would significantly reduce costs, promote support for the UN from the Global South, and enable it to participate more actively. This would eliminate the predicament of having the headquarters of an international legal institution located in a country that has proven to be one of the most persistent perpetrators of the crimes that the institution is intended to prevent.

At the institutional level, history clearly demonstrates the need to abolish institutional structures that consolidate imperial power, such as the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. The call to abolish these institutions was spearheaded by leaders of the decolonization movement, such as Thomas Sankara and Amílcar Cabral. The UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, as platforms for the voices of the Global South, must be given greater power—a point repeatedly emphasized by Algerian judge Mohammed Bedjaoui. Furthermore, this could be a moment to rapidly develop international law, building on historical efforts to create a new international legal order. Pacific Island nations have already challenged the limitations of international law by asking the International Court of Justice to rule on states' responsibility for climate change.

Progressive International, a coalition of progressive organizations from around the world, recently attempted to revive some of these past efforts by launching a project to develop a new framework for an international economic order. There is strength in united voices, and the experiences of people in the Global South in terms of economic and physical domination and enslavement are unifying. To achieve such a transformation, political currents need to align—even if only for a fleeting moment. The current genocide, neocolonialism, climate crisis, and sickening impunity compel us to reimagine the status quo. We cannot be cynical. We need to begin laying the foundations for a new international legal system, one that finds virtue in justice rather than in power.