For value-based Global Governance

Is our only choice between formal normalism and the order of violence imposed by the warring superpowers?

Abstract

In this study, we explore the theoretical roots and current implications of why the post-World War II international legal order collapsed and why the UN and the International Criminal Court have been weakened. We are currently at a point where, in the midst of diplomatic negotiations, wars that are prohibited by the UN Charter are being waged, or aggressors are escalating their missile attacks, sometimes even state leaders who are under arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. Based on the Donroe strategy, which was created from the Monroe Doctrine, the US president does not respect the sovereignty of certain states in his aggressive, even armed foreign policy, while keeping his distance but colluding with the empire-building ambitions of another, equally expansionist aggressor superpower. Meanwhile, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, he is openly destroying the organization of the international community of nations and, as an alternative, is building his own international "peace organization" as a kind of private organization. Certain great powers and their allies want to conquer again by force, in response to which a European great power is planning to develop nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. The question rightly arises: why are the international organizations designated for this purpose unable to ensure international law and order, and with it peace and security, and why have the ideas of great power conquest been revived? In our view, this is mainly explained by the spread of incorrect and dangerous theories. Empty formalism and aggressive great sphere theory are both based on violence, while the universal idea of the unconditional and equal dignity of all persons and peoples has been pushed into the background.