The West Has Accelerated Its Own Decline | Dr. Dr. Alfred de Zayas

## Introduction The recent exchange with Dr. Dr. Alfred de Zayas forces a blunt reckoning: the architecture of international law remains intact on paper even as its Western guarantors openly flout its norms. The crisis is not merely juridical but political and moral. When powerful states disregard the United Nations Charter, when enforcement is selective, and when institutions meant to uphold rules become instruments of policy, legitimacy erodes. The conversation mapped out both the scale of that erosion and the contours of a possible corrective: a multipolar rebalancing, institutional reform, and a reinvigoration of legal and civic mechanisms that can hold everyone — not only the weak — to account. ## The Crisis of International Law Legal instruments do not lose validity because states prefer convenience over compliance. As discussed in the conversation, the United Nations Charter still has primacy — Article 103 remains the legal north star — but primacy means little without enforcement. The problem identified is systemic: leading Western capitals, historically cast as guarantors of the postwar order, have in practice become its chief violators. The result is two-fold. First, international adjudicative bodies and human rights mechanisms issue findings and recommendations that are ignored or politically resisted. Second, the credibility of those institutions wanes in the eyes of the Global South and of many domestic publics. Dr. de Zayas highlights the paradox of a rules-based rhetoric paired with lawless practice. The outrage is not only about isolated instances of norm-breaking; it is about a pattern that includes extrajudicial killings, aerial bombardments, sanctions that inflict collective punishment, and diplomatic maneuvers that seek to sidestep the United Nations. The consequence is delegitimization: when enforcement is absent, law becomes aspirational rather than compulsory. That shift invites fragmentation — legal and geopolitical — as other powers look for alternative fora and mechanisms to secure their interests and to seek remedies. ## Reforming the Global System Post-Crisis Repairing the system is both a technical and political challenge. The conversation rejects wishful thinking that the traditional Western-led order will self-correct simply because of its past achievements. Institutional reform requires a change of mindset among states and civil societies, but it also requires new institutions and novel enforcement mechanisms. One pragmatic tack proposed is strengthening regional adjudicative structures and creating parallel tribunals that reflect the political reality of a multipolar world. The idea is not to discard the United Nations, but to supplement and shore it up with bodies that can deliver credible, enforceable decisions when the traditional centers of power refuse to act. A central reform theme is enforcement. Courts and commissions are only as effective as their capacity to see decisions implemented. That suggests imaginative remedies: linking trade and investment regimes to compliance with binding human-rights and humanitarian obligations, crafting collective commercial responses to persistent breaches, and giving international courts practical hooks for implementation — whether through multilateral sanctions regimes, dispute settlement tied to trade panels, or cooperative policing of arms transfers. Each of these proposals carries political risk, but the greater risk is stagnation: leaving the status quo to metastasize into permanent impunity for the powerful. ## Countering the "Humanitarian" War Party The conversation exposes another troubling feature of today’s international politics: the instrumentalization of “humanitarian” rhetoric to rationalize warfare and regime change. Dr. de Zayas warns against the "humanitarian war party" — political currents and policy networks that weaponize rights language to justify interventions and to rally domestic support for coercive measures. This tactic corrodes genuine humanitarianism and turns moral language into a cover for geopolitical aims. Countering that dynamic requires reclaiming the moral vocabulary of human rights and restoring rigorous standards of evidence and due process before any coercive international action is authorized. It also means scrutinizing institutions and awards that confer moral legitimacy — the conversation singled out the politicization of prestigious honors as symptomatic. Robust public education, more transparent investigative mechanisms, and insistence on multilateral authorization for any use of force are necessary corrective steps. The goal is to ensure that the rhetoric of human rights is not permitted to substitute for law, deliberation, or international legitimacy. ## Most Promising Paths to Reform Where should reform begin? The conversation suggests several promising vectors. First, deepen multipolar institutionalism: the Global South’s rising influence can be harnessed to build parallel enforcement architectures, whether through BRICS-led tribunals or strengthened regional human-rights courts that are insulated from external politicization. Second, de-dollarization and economic diversification are strategic tools: severing automatic economic dependence on any single hegemon introduces leverage that can be deployed in defense of international law and human dignity. Third, strengthen legal professionalism and insulation from political capture. That means fortifying the independence of judges and rapporteurs, ensuring transparent appointment processes, and protecting secretariats and adjudicative bodies from undue political interference. Finally, resuscitate civil society’s watchdog role: domestic and transnational civic organizations must regain the capacity to hold their governments accountable, including through litigation, investigative work, and international advocacy. Together, these measures could convert legal norms from moral exhortations into enforceable standards. ## The Corruption of Peace Prizes The conversation turns sharp when addressing symbolic instruments of moral authority. Peace prizes and international honors, once bulwarks of normative leadership, have in places become politicized endorsements. Dr. de Zayas recounts historical and contemporary examples where such awards blessed expansionist or militarist agendas, thereby diluting their credibility. When prizes meant to celebrate peacemakers are conferred on actors or movements aligned with coercive strategies, the moral signal collapses. This corruption matters because awards shape narratives. They elevate certain actors to global stature and legitimize policies and coalitions. Reform here is both institutional and cultural: award committees need transparent criteria, diverse representation, and safeguards against partisan capture. Public scrutiny and critical media attention are also essential to deter the misuse of symbolic honors. Restoring the integrity of moral accolades is part of a broader project to reclaim norms from political instrumentalization. ## Hope for a Multipolar Future Despite the bleak diagnosis, the conversation furnishes reasons for guarded optimism. The dissipating unipolar moment has opened space for alternatives. The Global South’s refusal to accept unilateral directives, the economic and diplomatic rise of China and India, and cooperative projects like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Belt and Road initiatives create new nodes of influence. If channelled constructively, these developments can produce a more balanced international order in which multiple centers of power check one another and where normative authority is not monopolized. Dr. de Zayas and the exchange more broadly see potential in a pluralistic architecture that places law and enforcement at its center. In that vision, diverse legal forums — regional courts, an empowered International Court of Justice, and new tribunals backed by coalitions of states — co

International Law is Valid; Its Western Guarantors Have Failed Is international law collapsing under the weight of powerful nations that blatantly ignore it? How can we use this crisis as a catalyst to build a system that actually holds everyone, not just the weak, accountable? To explore these critical questions, today I’m talking again to Dr. Alfred de Zayas, a Professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, who used to work as a senior lawyer in the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and later became the first UN Independent Expert on International Order. Together, we dissect the systemic hypocrisy of the "rules-based order," the rise of the Global South as a new center of power, the potential for BRICS to forge alternative legal tribunals, and the information war we must win to restore faith in global justice. Links: Homepage: https://www.alfreddezayas.com/ Alfred de Zayas' Human Rights Corner (Blog): https://dezayasalfred. wordpress.com/ X (Twitter): https://x.com/Alfreddezayas CounterPunch: https://www.counterpunch. org/author/alfred-de-zayas/ Alfred's latest article at Covert Action: https://covertactionmagazine.com /2025/11/03/the-trump-netanyahu-peace-plan-is-incompatible-with-un-charter-and-international- law/ Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:32 The Crisis of International Law 00:14:03 Reforming the Global System Post-Crisis 00:33:10 Countering the "Humanitarian" War Party 00:44:58 Most Promising Paths to Reform 00:52:49 The Corruption of Peace Prizes 00:58:44 Hope for a Multipolar Future 01:02:10 Where to Find Dr. de Zayas' Work #Pascal Hello everybody, this is Pascal Lottaz from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking again to Dr. Dr. Alfred de Zayas, a professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy who used to work as a senior lawyer in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and later became the first UN Independent Expert on International Order. Alfred, welcome back. #Alfred de Zayas Thanks, Pascal, for inviting me. And sorry for my voice — I’ve got a bit of a frog in my throat. #Pascal Thank you very much for doing the interview anyway, even though you’re a little under the weather. I really wanted to ask you — we’re seeing so much norm-breaking by the United States of America, of which you’re also a citizen, among other places you come from. What do you think about this current environment, in which the United States kills people — civilians — on the high seas, in front of Venezuela, in the Caribbean; where the United States has, in effect, renamed its Ministry of -- 1 of 13 -- Defense to the Ministry of War; where the U.S. just, you know, goes amok, basically, and breaks so many long-standing and well-defined rules? I just wonder if this doesn’t have an impact on international law itself. What are your views? #Alfred de Zayas Well, international law is valid. The United Nations Charter continues in its validity. What concerns me is the silence from London, Paris, and Berlin. I mean, we're supposed to be the guarantors of international law. Everything goes back to the League of Nations, to the foundation of the United Nations. And those countries that were carrying the responsibility to watch over the implementation of international law are failing. Certainly, the politicians have failed famously. On the other hand, if you look at the Human Rights Council and the special procedures, you’ve had the majority of the special rapporteurs come out and condemn all of these actions by the United States. Obviously, these are extrajudicial executions. But it wasn’t just the rapporteur on extrajudicial executions who condemned the actions of the U.S. government — it was he and almost everyone else who joined in the press release. The same thing happened at the time of the U.S. bombardment of Iran in June. The same goes for this attempt to sidestep international law by imposing a dictated peace on Hamas and establishing an administration — that’s all outside the United Nations system. And I always remind my students and listeners that the United Nations Charter is the primary treaty. And according to Article 103, the so-called supremacy clause, if there is any conflict between a treaty that the United States or any other country enters into — say, the Treaty of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or the Treaty of Maastricht of the European Union, or the Treaty of Lisbon of the European Union — if there is any inconsistency or conflict, it is the United Nations Charter that has precedence. So all treaties adopted after the UN Charter must conform to the Charter. We have consistent jurisprudence — I mean, judgments and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice — that confirm this. So, when the International Court of Justice finally comes down with its judgment on the South Africa v. Israel case, of course, it has no choice. It has to find that genocide has occurred. The International Court of Justice cannot ignore all the reports submitted by the rapporteurs on Palestine — I’m talking about John Dugard, Richard Falk, Michael Lynk, and, of course, Francesca Albanese. Nor can it ignore the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, headed by none other than the former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, along with my friend Miloon Kothari from India, one of the members of the commission. They reported to the Human Rights Council on the 16th of September this year, and their 72-page report, very detailed, proves that it is genocide beyond any doubt. So the International Court of Justice is not going to go against them. The Court is going to confirm what is already documented in hundreds of reports — not only from the Human Rights Council, but also from the UNDP, UNRWA, the statements of the directors of UNRWA, the Committee on the -- 2 of 13 -- Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination, and the Special General Assembly Committee on Israeli Practices. So the International Court of Justice is not going to go against them. But we do have a problem — a credibility problem — with the old system of international law when there is no enforcement. Enforcement is, and remains, the key to the authority of any institution. If you have a court, a tribunal, a commission that issues decision after decision, and those decisions are ignored, then you do have a problem. It's a systemic problem. But here, my hope actually lies in this gradual development we've been observing over the last five or ten years — that the Global South, otherwise known as the global majority, is no longer accepting the leadership of the United States. In fact, Trump is accelerating the destruction of the unipolar fantasy that the United States has nurtured since Francis Fukuyama’s preposterous book *The End of History*. I mean, this triumphalist idea that our so-called liberal democracies — which are not even democracies because of the disconnect between Trump and the American people, between Starmer and the Brits, between Macron and the French, and between Merz and the Germans — the disconnect is almost total. They’re living in parallel worlds. But in any event, the West has accelerated its own decline. And it is the Global South that is going to gradually take over. I mean, whether we like it or not, China is a powerhouse — so is India — and they are not going along with the orders coming from Washington. So Washington is hurting itself by acting in this completely Wild West manner, in which basically we are outlaws. We think we can get away with it because, well, who’s going to punish the United States? Well, yes, there is a very easy way to punish the United States. If countries come to their senses, they will stop buying American weapons, American missiles, American drones, American Tomahawks, F-35s, F-16s. They will not buy any more from Boeing. They will not buy any more American cars, American trucks, American Caterpillars. And we can do—that is, the Global South can do—enormous damage to the American economy simply by not buying American products. I mean, Russian weapons are extremely efficient. Weapons being produced in China and in North Korea are also extremely efficient. So if you think that you need more weapons—well, to be honest, we don't need more weapons. I want demilitarization. I want demilitarization for development. I want a reorientation of military-first economies into human- security economies, which can be done. I wrote a report about it for the Human Rights Council back in 2014. So if countries were to decide that the U.S. is at war with international law... The U.S. is at war with the United Nations. So we're going to isolate the United States commercially. We're not going to deal with them. The same thing goes for Israel. Israel is out of control. Israel is a terrorist state. Israel is a genocidal state. There's nothing worse than committing genocide. Therefore, not only should diplomatic relations be broken with Israel, but also commercial relations. Don't buy or sell to Israel. It's a question of organizing resistance. It's a question of taking leadership. And that leadership could be taken by the BRICS movement—by Brazil, South Africa, India, and China. -- 3 of 13 -- And let us see how Ukraine plays out now, with these three pockets of encircled Ukrainian soldiers— whether they will eventually surrender, or whether we’ll have here needless, absolutely needless dying. The narrative that Ukraine can still win is so delusional that it upsets me when you read it sometimes in the New York Times and the Washington Post, which are doing a disservice to their readers. I am very thankful for your programs, and for the programs of Professor Glenn Diesen, whom you’ve had on your show several times, but also for the very clear analysis we get from John Mearsheimer, from Jeffrey Sachs, and many others who are actually informing a growing public about the lies that governments have been playing with us. Yes, Pascal. #Pascal I am very glad. Thank you for that overview. What I believe we need to think about now—and the sooner, the better—is not only how we come out of this crisis, but how we use this crisis in international relations and international law as a catalyst to build something that works a little better than the previous version. For example, we see right now how certain states are just ignoring all kinds of provisions. And it’s the states that shout the loudest about a “rules-based order”—Israel, but also Germany, France, the UK, and so on—that absolutely ignore some of the fundamental pillars. We also see how civil society in many of these states is failing to hold their own systems to account. On the other hand, we also see how the trade system collapsed and how the World Trade Organization was basically sabotaged. Now, if we take that into account and think about how to systematize what you just proposed—punishing countries that ignore international law—how could we build a mechanism that actually connects the World Trade Organization, or whatever comes after it, with a stronger version of the Security Council, or some idea of how to prevent this systematic use of lethal force in the international realm? Do you have any idea, not just what should be built, but also how we could go about building it? #Alfred de Zayas Well, unless you have a change of mindset—and most people still want to believe in the survivability of the current system—it takes, shall we say, temerity to cut yourself off from this belief that the United States will come back to observing international law. Because even when we talk about Barack Obama, who was made into a saint by the press and the narratives, and even the years of Biden and Blinken, which were, shall we say, more elegant in their violations of international law, they were all systematically vio