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 

International Law and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia constitutes a breach of international law and the UN Charter. It flagrantly violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which declares that a state shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The UN Charter contains two exceptions to the above prohibition. The first permits the UN Security Council to use force on behalf of the UN to maintain peace and security. However, a unanimous resolution by the Security Council member states is required prior to such use of force. The second, Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes a state’s inherent right of self-defence and collective self-defence against an armed attack.

President Putin in his speech dated 23 February 2022 sought to validate his actions under international law by referring to Article 51 of the UN Charter. He argued that Russia’s invasion was an act of self-defence and collective self-defence protecting both Russia and the separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk from an armed attack by Ukraine and NATO. However, Putin’s claims lack legal merit.

Firstly, Ukraine has not attacked Russia, nor has it threatened to attack Russia. Secondly, whilst the doctrine of collective self-defence permits one state to defend another state that is being attacked the separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk are not states but Ukrainian sovereign territory and Article 51 does not apply to non-states. In fact, these enclaves were only a few days ago recognized as states by Russia. Thirdly, Russia’s claims lack in factual basis as Ukraine has not attacked these enclaves, but rather Russian armed militia have sought to enforce secession causing an armed conflict there. Finally, even if Russia could muster some legal justification, this does not excuse a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the unfolding humanitarian destruction. Its use of force is disproportionate and not limited to what is needed to prevent any alleged infringement.

International Law and Politics

The relationship between law and politics has forever been a troubling affair. The extent to which national security should be influenced by international law or issues of “morality” has been the issue of serious debate amongst scholars and foreign policy officials alike. For decades the West and its global allies have adopted a more liberal international view of international relations. They have established international rules and institutions between states aiming at long term co-operation and effective dispute resolution. It is the “institutionalized cooperation between countries on the basis of established rules and mutual respect” that proponents of liberal internationalism propagate.  They project values of “order, liberty, justice, and toleration in international relations”. Moreover, liberal internationalists maintain that the adoption of democratic principles by states is the key to securing peace since democracies are perceived as rarely going to war against each other.

On the contrary, realist proponents of international relations believe in the anarchical nature of the world. They question the extent to which international law has any relevance in the formulation of foreign policy and national security agendas. Indeed, realists maintain that states should not always comply with their legal obligations especially when to do so threatens vital national interests. Traces of this debate can be found in antiquity in Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue and in the Athenians pronouncement that “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”. 

Leaders like Russian President Putin, Former US President Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Turkish President Erdogan seem more comfortable in a “might is right” view of international relations as opposed to a more democratic and legal rules based view. Indeed, Putin’s attack on Ukraine ultimately is also an attack on the liberal democratic view of the world. And as such must be vehemently opposed.

Is International Law dead?

President Putin, in his speech dated 23 February 2022, alleged previous Western violations of international law in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. Of course, these have no bearing to the illegality of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine today. Nonetheless, there is an element of truth that the prohibition of the use of force and respect of territorial integrity has been undermined by the West in the past.

However, whilst Russia today and some Western states in the past have circumvented international law in favour of perceived national security interests or humanitarian grounds this does not and should not render international law dead or irrelevant. To deem so will be both erroneous and an oversimplification. It is international law that shapes the debate and provides a most powerful language through which states like Russia try to justify their actions. Whilst Putin is flagrantly breaching the UN Charter, he still tries to defend his conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within the UN Charter itself. Most importantly however, whilst international law was not able to prevent Russia to wage war against Ukraine there is law and it is the breach of such international law that has resulted in global sanctions, protests, dissent and the delegitimating of Russian power.

The decision by Putin to invade Ukraine signals the end of the post-Cold War era. What will follow remains unknown. However, our values of democracy, freedom, territorial integrity, and the rule of law should never be abandoned. Democracies should always ensure that their global behaviour also adheres to these values. Democracies should not appease; they need to bound together and fight aggression. Citizens of democracies should never take for granted the importance of our values based system and how easy these can vanish when authoritarian demagogues take power. 

It is imperative that we oppose Putin’s actions not only because we must support the Ukrainian people in the face of aggression but also because it is a breach of international law and because relationships and problems between states should always be shaped and resolved by adherence to legal principles. 

By Vasilis (Bill) Giavris

Lawyer & Political Scientist

Standing opposed the politics of Greek populism, lies and misery

The name dispute issue with Skopje is of fundamental importance to all Greek people. Regrettably, it has been hijacked by demagogues preoccupied with fulfilling their own (and their internal/external patron sponsors) personal and political agendas. It is farcical that the major political parties in Greece do not have a uniform approach to this issue and have failed to achieve national consensus. The absence of a common front and national planning has resulted in a serious risk that Greece will be defeated in this matter. Responsibility lays on the entire political spectrum and media outlets that continue to mislead and invest in political division and commotion. 

However, the greatest problem facing Greece today is not the name dispute with Skopje – it is the economy and rapid population decline. These two problems are intertwined and directly linked to the country's foreign policy. Both have severe ramifications on our relations with Turkey, our greatest threat, and our neighbours in the Balkan peninsula. After all, the ability to exercise foreign influence is primarily dependant on the internal strength of a state and Greece, with its current social/political divisions, economic turmoil and aging population, is lacking in such dynamism. 

Similarly, population balances in the Balkans are quickly being overturned. The population of Turkey and the number of Albanians in the Balkan peninsula is rising rapidly. In contrast, in Greece there is a demographic contraction. Eurostat estimates that by the year 2080 the population of Greece will have fallen by 3.5 million! As a result, the Greek nation is shrinking with all the inevitable consequences that frequently follow. Besides, in geopolitics there are no gaps since increasing populations will always desire to fill the gaps left by declining populations.

Unfortunately, young Greek people continue to emigrate abroad, and the ones staying behind are not bearing many children. As long as the economy remains weak and unemployment high, this downward spiral will continue. The economy will remain weak if we refuse to impose the appropriate reforms and structural changes that the country needs and we continue to invest in polarisation and controversy. It will remain weak if we constantly demand change of governments, if we continue to blame others and never take ownership of our wrongdoings and seek to immediately redress them. With ongoing strikes, demonstrations, aphorisms and the politics of misery, Greece will not go forward. In such a climate of uncertainty, one cannot expect investment and growth or the return of young people to Greece. 

Issues such as sub-replacement fertility and creating incentives to attract the return of people who recently migrated abroad, including some second and third generation Greeks living abroad, remain outside the political agenda. The reason they do so is simple. These issues do not sell, they do not polarise, they do not immediately bring party political benefits. A protest rally for these issues will never take place and as long as Greeks continue to focus on the tree and lose sight of the forest, this will never change. 

Within this fluid state, Greece is today called upon to carefully manoeuvre between the Scylla of populism and the Charybdis of deceit whilst simultaneously standing its ground in an aggressive neighbourhood. But today cannot come from yesterday only nor from the proponents of loud, proud and ignorant. The future cannot be built on jingoisms, whipping up passion, lies and false dilemmas. The power of Greece is commensurate with its knowledge. As long as the citizens of Greece permit themselves to be deceived by populism, by false and misleading media reports and Facebook rants, the country will remain weak and its citizens will continue to suffer. 

It is imperative that we stand up and oppose those who wish to immobilize every attempt to escape our current predicament. That we oppose the cycle of fanaticism, misinformation and instability. Let us refuse to adhere to hollow reflex politics. Against populism, lies and misery, let us uphold a new patriotism. A new patriotism based on the renewal of knowledge. One that is not afraid to speak the truth and is able to balance vision and popular desire with diplomacy and realism. 

Vasilis Theodosiou Giavris

(Lawyer - Political Scientist)

Melbourne, February 15, 2018