{"id":138449,"date":"2025-03-15T19:17:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-15T18:17:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/geab.eu\/2025-2030-droit-international-les-etats-font-la-revolution\/"},"modified":"2025-03-16T19:11:06","modified_gmt":"2025-03-16T18:11:06","slug":"2025-2030-international-law-states-make-the-revolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/geab.eu\/en\/2025-2030-international-law-states-make-the-revolution\/","title":{"rendered":"2025-2030 – International law: States make the revolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

Public International Law (PIL[1]<\/a>) is on the brink of a forced revolution. This revolution, of which Trump will be the catalyst, is based on the inadequacies of the current system.<\/p>\n

This transformation raised several issues, particularly in terms of human rights. It will also be the source of a certain indifference as regards the protection of democratic systems and civilian populations, preferring initially to reaffirm the notion of non-interference as a cardinal and absolute principle[2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It will also bring real innovations that will ensure that the current system is better adapted to the realities of the international world. While some parts of the PIL, in particular international investment law, will be preserved, some of the foundations of international law will be radically transformed. Whereas the PIL was established at a time when only the State was active on the international scene, the new international law will give transnational players a greater role.<\/p>\n

But what is driving this revolution? Is it possible to speak of a crisis in international law to explain this future transformation, or is it merely a re-evaluation of the circumstances, repeated in each era?\u00a0 As far back as the 1980s, the expression “crisis of international law” was used to describe a paradigm shift[3]<\/a>. This rupture, considered by the dominant capitalist doctrine as a crisis, was therefore, for some, a desirable revolution[4]<\/a>. Today, the term “crisis” is sometimes used to refer to the increasing number of violations of the PIL. Yet the PIL has always been violated by many actors, whether members of the Security Council or pariah states. After all, the law is never fully respected[5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Today, however, the term “crisis” seems justified by the emergence of a new phenomenon in addition to the violations of the PIL. This is contempt for this legal order and the system it represents. The emergence of this phenomenon can be explained by the increasingly blatant maladjustment of the international system to more or less recent changes.\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTo read the full article, register now<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAlready a subscriber? Sign in<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t