Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Monday, 19 January 2026

International law must be defended against populists like Donald Trump

From the beginning of his presidency, US President Donald Trump has made it explicitly clear that he intends to annex Canada and Greenland which he sees as vital to US interests. Trump has stated that he will not hesitate to use military force to annex Greenland, which is part of Denmark and a NATO ally. He recently announced that Denmark, Sweden, France, the UK, Norway, Holland, Germany and Finland are all set to face tariffs on goods exported to the US from 1 February 2026 until such countries support the US annexation of Greenland.

For a long time, US President Donald Trump has made it very clear that he has little regard for the Rule of Law. Indeed, only a few days ago he declared that “I don’t need international law” and that the only check on his power in the world stage is his “own morality” and his “own mind”. Such disregard was evident when he stated that the US will "take over" and "own" the Gaza Strip. He confirmed this when he ordered US military action against Venezuela and the capture of its head of state in what most likely constitutes a breach Article 2(4) of the United Nation Charter.

Actions matter but so do words. Trump’s rhetoric is not just some erratic comments made by an erratic individual. They underly a strategy. They are underpinned by a “might is right” view of the world. They are a core tenet of contemporary far right populist ideologies who in the name of pseudo “sovereignism” disregard international law, global and regional institutions, free trade and the International Liberal Order. They ignore the very institutions and legal doctrines that the US championed and had a pivotal role in creating. They seek to dissolve the very essence of the Western world. But populism is not an ideology per se, instead, it’s a strategy to obtain and retain power.

What many people in the West fail to understand is that the peace and prosperity that followed World War 2 did not just happen, it was not a product of luck or some miraculous intervention. It took place because wise political leaders and states acknowledged the unprecedented devastation of past wars and the need to never again repeat them. It was the result of the adoption of a Liberal International Order built on international rules, democracy, free markets and human rights. It was a result of a rule based international order that promoted accountability, cooperation and understanding amongst states.

If there is no international law, if there is no international court system then who determines what is right and wrong? If there are no agreed set principles of behavior, then what stops any state to unilaterally undertake any action when it has the military power to do so. When Donald Trump states that Greenland is necessary to the US and therefore will annex it then what stops China doing the same with Taiwan, or Russia with the Baltic stated and Poland, and Turkey with Greece and Cyprus? When Trump states that just because “they (Denmark) had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land” then what stops China or Japan to repeat this claim against Australia or New Zealand. One might argue that he is inviting them to do so.

Why is populism on the rise?

So why do many people in the US and the Western world subscribe to people like Donald Trump and his populist far right politics? Why is there growing mistrust to democratic institutions? There is no one simple answer.

Populism can be associated with crisis situations. The effects of the Global Financial crisis in 2008 cannot be underestimated. It still resonates today as it delivered a major blow to western economies and undermined faith in the established political and financial order. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the rise of populism. Temporary restriction on movement of people laws, the requirement of vaccinations and economic insecurity all gave rise to anti-systemic rhetoric and substantial misinformation.

The Hyper-globalization that took place in the 1990s and 2000s, whilst producing great benefits like economic growth and technological advancement, also gave rise to inequalities and deindustrialization in the Western world. Many blue-collar factory workers lost their jobs because of offshoring to China and other developing countries.

Finally, woke culture narrative and immigration issues alienated some people and provoked resistance. Populists sought to explore this by accusing cultural elites of being out of touch with common people. Many governments did not take the time to explain and to create a consensus for change, sometimes opting for a more radical approach. Often, those who disagreed were alienated and stigmatized by the very people that championed inclusion. Ultimately populists were able to hijack the public discourse, focusing on cultural grievances instead of wider critical issues.

Social media and tech oligarchs

The rise of populism has been substantially aided and encouraged by the drastic spread of social media. Whilst platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Tik Tok have given voice to all people, and in this regard democratized political participation, they have also enabled the spread of misinformation, extremist rhetoric and political manipulation. These platforms are controlled by a handful of billionaire tech oligarchs. In the name of “freedom of speech” they permit, if not outright encourage, such misinformation for their own personal agendas and political beliefs or for the agendas of the political elite they support or are supported by. Elons Musk’s open support of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party during the 2025 German elections and his appearance at their events is a testament to this.

Social media systematically amplify certain political content and systematically suppress others. Algorithms create echo chambers of false content. They do not seek to promote or to question the truthfulness of the content but rather are engagement driven by promoting trending counter narratives. Algorithms favor sensationalist content that promotes anger and fear since the engagement content (likes, shares) is most likely to go viral when it is anger driven and triggers an emotional reaction. Very rarely will ‘good news’ political stories become trending, or a positive political statement become viral. On the contrary politicians drumming up anger, hate and who invest in blame games, conspiracy theories and the politics of accusation become trending. By appealing to emotions, by dividing social groups, discrediting opponents and by using inflammatory language to challenge the legitimacy of institutions they drum up engagement. Engagement and views bring in money. They also serve political agendas.

Today, more than ever democracy is under attack. Western civilization is under attack. It is attacked from within by those that wish to see us return to the dark ages. It is attacked by social media moguls in the US that wish to interfere with European elections and support Far right populist parties like Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, Marie Le Pen's National Rally, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. What all these parties have in common is anti-European Union rhetoric. Similar interferences do and will continue take place in Canada and Australia. Unfortunately, there are no European or Australian owned social media platforms that have millions of users. We have seized control of our media and news agenda to the US.

Foreign state interference in Western countries elections

Ironically, to date, social media does not pose a major problem for countries like Russia, China and even Turkey as they are not full democracies. These countries either ban social media outright or heavily suppress it during periods of unrest. For example, Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) are banned in China and Russia whilst on many occasions they have been blocked and heavily censored in Turkey.

However, Russian bots can and do interfere in European, American and Australian elections, they “hack” algorithms through manipulation of emotional triggers, shape narratives, overstate problems and affect election results. But no Western country can reciprocate such action since social media is either banned or state controlled in Russia. It is striking that people in Greece or Australia can freely support Russia's invasion of Ukraine on social media, while those in Russia face restrictions on expressing opposition.

International law

International organizations like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court were all created after the end of the Second World War. They help prevent global conflicts, allow better cooperation and understanding between states, they adjudicate disputes and hear grievances. They promote and uphold human rights.

Whilst not perfect and on occasions, selectively used and abused by powerful states, the world is a better place today because of them. They require amendments and improvements but exist they must. Global anarchy and a “might is always right” approach to international relations is a return to the dark ages and the 1930’s world. We all know what follows.

Trumps moral view is moral chaos which explains his desire to abandon law in international affairs. As such, populists like Donald Trump need to be opposed in every country before it becomes too late. International law must be defended.

By Vasilios Giavris
Lawyer & Political Scientist 



Friday, 11 October 2019

Turkish invasion of Syria is a breach of International Law

Turkish invasion of Syria constitutes a breach of international law and the UN Charter. It reflects a grand new strategy that articulates a vision of Turkey as a unipolar state entitled to operate above the confines of international law and international institutions to further its national interest. It introduces in international law the “safe zone” concept as a unilateral right to invade without the need to show grounds of “self-defence”. It provides a dangerous precedent that inevitably risks undermining global peace and security whilst questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of international law.

Background 

A few days ago, Turkish President Erdogan announced to the world that Turkey was unilaterally beginning “Operation Peace Spring” - an assault on Syrian-Kurds living in northeastern Syria. He further announced that the operation also aimed to establish a “safe zone”, facilitating the return of million Syrian refugees to their country. Turkish troops have now invaded Syria and bombed Kurds living in the north-east region. It has been reported that within 48 hours hundreds of people have died and 64,000.00 people have been forced to leave their homes - this number is expected to soon rise to 300,000.00. 

In effect what Turkey is really trying to do is to contain Syrian-Kurdish power. It wishes to quash any future possibility that a Kurdish state may be created. By creating a space inside Syria, where millions of Syrian refugees currently hosted in Turkey can be settled (disposing of the existing Kurds), it creates a buffer zone that serves its perceived national interest. 

United Nations Charter 

Pursuant to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. The UN Charter makes it clear that the use of military force in the territory of a sovereign state without its consent is permissible only under at least one of two conditions: 

  • By unanimous approval of the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII whereby the Security Council should authorize what action should be taken to restore peace and security; and 
  • Pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Amongst other this Article states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” 

To date the UN Security Council has not authorized any invasion of use of force. 

Self Defence? 

Turkey has defended it invasion pursuant to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It maintains that there is a presence of what it views as a “terrorist organization,” and maintains that pursuant to Article 51 it has the right to invade and create a “safe zone” or “peace corridor” along its border. 

Such defence is absent of any legal merit. Firstly, the people Turkey refers to as a Terrorist organization are the same Syrian-Kurdish fighters who are US allies and instrumental in delivering recent victory against ISIS. Indeed only a few days ago US President Trump referred to them as “special people and wonderful fighters”. Secondly, Turkey has not provided any evidence to the Security Council of any existing or imminent attack. Indeed, no armed attack against Turkey has taken place, has been threatened or is imminent or may reasonably be deemed imminent and arising from Syrian-Kurds. 

Turkey is attempting to re-write international law and create a new “safe zone” doctrine that grants it a “right to invade”. This concept means self-defense is no-longer a necessary pretext. To accept Turkish claims means to accept that, without any evidence whatsoever, any country may claim that a terrorist organization exists in another country and as such: 
  • claim a legal right to invade such other country;
  • create a “safe zone” along the border; 
  • amend borders and re-populate this zone with millions of refugees from other areas thus completely altering the demographic composition of an occupied territory. 
The above are not permitted under international law. Turkish invasion of Syria is illegal, and the international community must immediately act to stop it.

By Vasilios Giavris - Lawyer & Political Scientist
Friday, 11 October 2019