With brutal wars unravelling in Ukraine and Gaza, and escalatory assaults between Iran and Israel, defending worldwide legislation has by no means been extra obligatory. Many have argued that the West’s assist for Ukraine, typically couched when it comes to respect for worldwide legislation, has been undermined by the identical nations’ lacklustre assist for Gaza. This has given rise to a bigger international coverage debate about alleged double requirements of the West. The declare is that Western nations are involved with violations of worldwide legislation solely when it serves their very own pursuits.
If I converse for my very own nation, Norway, I can say that the accusation is off the mark. We’ve been clear that an actual dedication to worldwide legislation calls for condemning Russia’s struggle of aggression in opposition to Ukraine but additionally calling out Israeli violations of worldwide legislation in Gaza.
Avoiding double requirements in our international coverage has been a longstanding Norwegian precedence. Successive Norwegian governments have, as a matter of precept, come to the defence of worldwide legislation no matter who violates it. Whether or not it’s the ongoing struggle in Gaza, conflicts on the African continent, Israel’s unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territories, Britain’s violation of worldwide legislation within the Chagos Archipelago or Russia’s unlawful struggle of aggression in opposition to Ukraine, Norway has been principled and clear. We’ve not shirked from calling out any of those violations for what they’re, no matter who dedicated them.
Is that this the best strategy? There are those that have been sceptical. It has been argued that nations needs to be cautious to not criticise allies and companions after they violate worldwide legislation. The argument is that the world is fraught with peril, and all states, maybe particularly smaller states equivalent to Norway, needs to be cautious to not alienate their allies and companions, even after they act inconsistently with worldwide legislation.
That is, nonetheless, a mistaken strategy. Actual safety relies upon in the end on a peaceable worldwide neighborhood geared up to resolve world challenges. That in flip requires that we work to make sure that worldwide legislation is revered. Until all nations are dedicated to worldwide legislation, the system will ultimately collapse. That might invariably result in much less safety and extra uncertainty for everybody.
A 100 years in the past, Francis Hagerup, a distinguished worldwide lawyer and Norwegian prime minister, noticed that the precept of sovereign equality of states was the Magna Carta of the world’s states. Nonetheless immediately, any transfer away from something aside from an unwavering dedication to worldwide legislation could be disastrous for the worldwide neighborhood. It’s the very bulwark in opposition to a state of affairs the place may is true, in opposition to what the Worldwide Court docket of Justice referred to as, in its first ruling after the second world struggle, “the manifestation of a coverage of pressure”.
Might our constant defence of worldwide legislation, together with in relation to Western allies, be misconstrued as acceptance of the narrative propagated by Russia and China that the West is hypocritical? Provided that one intentionally tries to misconceive. It’s true that Western states, too, have dedicated violations of worldwide legislation. The invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain in 2003 is one instance. Within the face of such a coverage of pressure, a rustic equivalent to Norway should, as we did 20 years in the past, have the braveness of its convictions. Solely then can we, with the good thing about actual credibility, criticise states that actually and systematically base themselves and their international coverage on double requirements.
It is just then that we are able to credibly punch holes in Russia’s narrative that it’s the valiant advocate of worldwide legislation on behalf of the International South. There’s apparently no restrict to how appalled Russia has been by the killing of civilians beneath bombardment in Gaza, whereas Russia on the identical time has been bombing colleges and hospitals in Ukraine. As our Western allies are coming to know, this cynical double normal may be countered successfully provided that one is principled. Norway’s constant stance as regards each Ukraine and Gaza permits us to level out such contradictions in a approach that really cuts by way of. The identical is the case now with the assaults on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and Iran’s retaliatory strikes in opposition to Israel; having criticised Israel for the primary occasion, which not all states had been keen to do, Norway can, with the good thing about consistency and credibility, criticise Iran for the second.
Some have argued that it’s unrealistic to be equally involved about each violation of worldwide legislation the entire time. But, Norway’s dedication to counteract conflicts and crises persistently doesn’t preclude us from implementing a international coverage primarily based on real looking priorities. It’s intuitively comprehensible {that a} struggle in a neighbouring nation considerations folks greater than whether it is happening in a far-flung place on one other continent. It’s logical that it’s significantly alarming for Norway that Russia, a rustic with which we share a protracted border, is trying to annex Ukrainian territory by way of the unlawful use of pressure. A struggle in our personal neighbourhood inevitably has critical safety coverage implications more likely to outweigh these of a battle distant.
Norway can not, due to this fact, be accused of double requirements for offering materiel to the Ukrainian defence battle or for giving a traditionally giant help package deal to Ukraine. We should, nonetheless, watch out to not create the impression that Russia is assessed in response to particular guidelines. Accordingly, we’ve, in our criticism of Russia, as of different states, emphasised the violations of the United Nations Constitution and of different universally accepted guidelines of worldwide legislation.
Equally, Norway has not shied away from being essential of Israel’s coverage of annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory. Norway made this clear in its submissions in February 2024 earlier than the Worldwide Court docket of Justice within the ongoing advisory opinion continuing regarding Israel’s insurance policies within the occupied Palestinian territory. In our oral submissions earlier than the Court docket, we had been clear that Israel’s actions in Gaza quantity to indiscriminate and disproportionate use of pressure. We at the moment are working to make sure that Palestine is granted full membership within the United Nations.
What’s essential for Norway – what underpins our international coverage throughout the board – is that we insist that related circumstances be handled equally, and that every one states be topic to the identical guidelines.
This can be a place that ought to encourage all states. Each state has a stake in upholding universally agreed guidelines on using pressure, free and honest commerce, human rights and the makes use of of the oceans and their assets. Our frequent future relies on respect for worldwide legislation. This requires nations within the International North and the International South to have the ability to see worldwide legislation as a good algorithm; in flip, which means that the principles have to be utilized persistently. All states should resist the temptation, primarily based on short-term nationwide curiosity, to violate the tenets of the worldwide authorized order.
If there was one frequent thread working by way of the works of Norway’s foremost playwright and poet, Henrik Ibsen, it was the insistent calling out of the double requirements of well mannered society. Ibsen’s insistence could, at occasions, have irked those that felt referred to as out; it was nonetheless the best place. For Norway, the place is obvious. Our most necessary contribution to a peaceable and simply world order – and to our personal nationwide safety – is to keep away from double requirements in international coverage and to work to make sure that different states accomplish that too.
The views expressed on this article are the creator’s personal and don’t essentially mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
