TL;DR: Many people view international relations through a lens of static morality or outdated "historical claims." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. International law is not a set of divine commandments; it is a fluid consensus maintained by three critical axes: Time (the statute of limitations on claims), Power (the ability to enforce treaties), and Meaning (the evolving interpretation of legitimacy). This article deconstructs why historical grievances like "ancient territory" are legally irrelevant without enforcement, and why treaties are not binding contracts but snapshots of power dynamics in a specific moment.
James here, CEO of Mercury Technology Solutions.
I recently received a flurry of messages from friends confused by some truly bizarre geopolitical takes circulating online. It reminded me again: do not trust information from the "content farms" unless you have a rigorous filter for media literacy.
Let's clear the fog by asking a few first-principles questions:
- Is international law recognized by every nation? No.
- Is most international law actually fulfilled? Yes.
- Will a specific treaty or declaration be enforced? It depends.
Does this mean the world is just a jungle where "might makes right"? If you believe that, I suggest you stop reading and just prepare for war. Because if your only argument is "I have a bigger fist," you better win. History is written by the victors, but until you win, claiming "power is truth" is just premature arrogance.
To understand how the world actually works, we need to look beyond the surface level of "who signed what" and analyze the system through three axes: Time, Power, and Meaning.
Axis 1: Time (The Statute of Limitations on History)
A common fallacy is the idea that a later treaty simply overwrites an earlier one, or that historical ownership grants eternal rights. This is false.
Scenario: Country A defeats Country B and takes Region X. Twenty years later, Country B defeats Country A and takes Region X back. Can we say Country A "returned" the territory? No. These are two separate historical events. The people living in Region X have changed. The legal basis for the transfer is a new treaty based on a new war, not a restoration of the old order.
The "Ancient Territory" Trap: Can Country B claim Region X is its "inherent territory" because it owned it 40 years ago? In the modern international system, blood and soil arguments weaken over time. If we accept that ancient ownership justifies modern conquest, where do we stop? The grandfather? The great-grandfather? The Romans? The Mongols?
Time matters. You cannot simply claim a land is yours because it was yours a century ago. The international community cares about current governance and stability, not ancient history.
Axis 2: Meaning (Declarations vs. Reality)
Declarations are powerful, but only if they are backed by reality.
Scenario: Leaders of Country A and Country B meet. They issue a "Region X Declaration," stating that Region X (currently held by Country C for 20 years) actually belongs to Country B based on history from 40 years ago. They demand Country C return it.
This declaration is not just invalid; it is rogue. Why would Country C care? They took the land through war (the accepted mechanism of the time), they have governed it for 20 years, the economy has doubled, and the population is stable.
In the eyes of the international community, Country A and B are the aggressors. Modern legitimacy is derived from effective governance, not just historical claims. Unless Country C is committing genocide or treating the region as a slave colony (which invites sanctions), the world will default to the status quo.
The Lesson: A declaration without a mechanism for implementation is just noise. The Balfour Declaration was just words until the UN and the post-WWII order created the mechanism to partition Palestine. Meaning must be anchored in reality.
Axis 3: Power (The Enforcer Determines the Rules)
Finally, every treaty has a Prime Mover.
Scenario: Country A is beaten to the brink of collapse but survives because it allied with the powerful Country C. Country C defeats Country B. Can Country A dictate the peace treaty? No.
To Country B, Country A is a loser. The victor is Country C. To Country C, Country A is a junior partner who needed saving.
The nation that expends the most blood and treasure dictates the terms.
- Why did the US dictate the post-WWII order in Western Europe? Because they fought the war. France, having collaborated via the Vichy regime, was lucky to even have a seat at the table.
- Why did the Soviets dictate the order in Eastern Europe? Because their tanks were there.
- Why did the US dictate the order in Japan? Because the US defeated Japan in the Pacific.
Power creates the enforcement mechanism. A treaty is only as good as the power willing to enforce it. Without an enforcer, a treaty is a piece of paper.
Conclusion: The System Design of International Order
- Time creates separation: Treaties are snapshots of a specific time. You cannot unilaterally tear them up or link them to ancient history without a new consensus.
- Execution is everything: An agreement without the capacity for enforcement is void. The validity of a treaty depends entirely on the capability of the Enforcer.
- Power is the retrospective justification: Those who scream "might makes right" before they have won are usually the ones about to lose. True power doesn't need to scream; it simply establishes the new order.
Understanding these axes stops you from being manipulated by emotional, nationalistic narratives. The world is a complex system of checks and balances, not a simple story of good vs. evil or ancient rights.
