However, the transition from a bipolar model of international law to a unipolar one never fully occurred, even despite the disappearance of

В ответ на пост

However, the transition from a bipolar model of international law to a unipolar one never fully occurred, even despite the disappearance of one of the ideological-power poles. This was prevented by the synchronous rise of China and Russia under Putin, when the contours of a completely different world architecture—multipolarity—first began to manifest clearly. On the opposite side of the globalists (both the left-wing, pure liberal-internationalists, and the right-wing neocons), a new force appeared. While not yet clearly defined ideologically, it nonetheless rejects the ideological pattern of the liberal-globalist West. This initially vague force began to defend the UN and counteract the final formalization of unipolarity—that is, the conversion of the power and ideological status quo (the real dominance of the collective West) into a corresponding legal system.

Thus, we find ourselves in a situation resembling chaos. It turns out that five operating systems of international relations are currently functioning in the world simultaneously, as incompatible as software from different manufacturers:

1. By inertia, the UN and the norms of international law recognize the sovereignty of nation-states, which in reality lost its force nearly a hundred years ago and exists as a “phantom pain.” Nevertheless, sovereignty is still recognized and sometimes becomes an argument in international politics.

2. Also by inertia, some institutions retain traces of the long-concluded bipolar world. This corresponds to nothing at all, yet it makes itself felt from time to time—for example, in the question of nuclear parity between Russia and the USA.

3. The collective West continues to insist on globalization and the movement towards a World Government. This means that all nation-states are invited to cede their sovereignty in favor of supranational instances—such as the International Court of Human Rights or the Hague Tribunal. The EU insists on being a model for the entire world in terms of erasing all collective identities and bidding farewell to national statehood.

4. The USA—especially under Trump—under the influence of the Neocons, behaves as the sole hegemon, considering “law” to be anything that is in the interests of America. This messianic approach partially opposes globalism, disregards Europe and internationalism, but insists just as sharply on the de-sovereignization of all states—by right of force.

5. And finally, the contours of a multipolar world are emerging ever more clearly, where the bearer of sovereignty is the state-civilization—such as modern China, Russia, or India. This requires yet another system of international law. The prototype for such a model could be BRICS or other regional integration platforms—without the participation of the West (since the West brings its own, more articulated and rigid models with it).

All five systems operate simultaneously, and naturally, they interfere with one another, producing continuous failures, conflicts, and contradictions. A logical short-circuiting of the network occurs, creating the impression of chaos or simply the absence of any international law whatsoever. If there are five simultaneous international laws that exclude one another, then, in essence, there is none.

The conclusion from such an analysis is quite alarming. Such contradictions on a global level, such a deep conflict of interpretations, has almost never in history (honestly, never at all) been resolved peacefully. Those who refuse to fight for their world order find themselves immediately defeated. And they will have to fight for someone else’s world order, already in the status of vassals.

— 5

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]