Is International Law Built for Today's Wars?

In this episode of Deep Dish on Global Affairs, host Leslie Vinjimori engages in a profound conversation with Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and pioneering chief prosecutor of the UN tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Arbour reflects on her accidental yet transformative role in shaping international criminal justice during the 1990s, a period marked by the creation of the first-ever UN ad hoc tribunals and the historic indictment of a sitting head of state—Slobodan Milosevic. She traces the evolution of international law from a hopeful era of consensus, where justice was seen as an instrument of peace, to today’s fractured landscape, where great power politics, particularly U.S. actions in Iraq and the war on terror, have eroded trust in international norms. Arbour distinguishes between human rights law and international humanitarian law, emphasizing that while human rights protect life and dignity, the laws of war regulate killing in conflict. She expresses deep concern over the erosion of the norm protecting civilians, citing recent rhetoric from U.S. leaders that threatens civilian infrastructure in Iran as potentially war crimes. Despite these challenges, she remains cautiously optimistic, arguing that national democratic health and domestic accountability are foundational to global progress. The episode concludes with a call to strengthen domestic systems as the bedrock of international cooperation. Key takeaways include: (1) International criminal justice was once a powerful tool for peace, but its legitimacy now depends on political will, not just legal frameworks; (2) The distinction between human rights law and the laws of war is critical—human rights protect life, while the laws of war regulate killing; (3) The erosion of norms protecting civilians, especially through rhetoric that justifies attacks on infrastructure, undermines decades of progress; (4) The International Criminal Court’s effectiveness is limited not by its jurisdiction, but by the lack of domestic accountability mechanisms; (5) National democratic health is essential for global cooperation; (6) Aspirational ideals like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remain valid, even if not yet realized; (7) The absence of accountability for war crimes, even when committed, does not make them legal—only the lack of consequence makes them possible; (8) The future of international law lies in strengthening domestic systems, not abandoning multilateralism.