03/06/2026

First page Previous page 10 Next page Last page

WEDNESDAY | JUNE 3, 2026

READ OUR

HERE

Malaysian Paper

/thesun

COMMENT by B.A. Hamzah

I NTERNATIONAL law was born in the aftermath of World War II. Long a companion, guide and teacher to nations, International Law, Esq., died on Feb 28, 2026, in Tehran. He was 81. Yet, the perpetrators responsible for his demise remain at large. They continue to sow terror while dismantling the very rules they once pledged to uphold. Operating with apparent impunity, they wreak havoc in the Strait of Hormuz and South Lebanon, undermining the international order they profess to defend. The criminals remain scot-free, emboldened by the absence of accountability and the erosion of the principles that once governed relations among nations. As the world shifts from a rules based order founded on international law to a law of the jungle – where “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” – no one appears willing or able to hold the two predatory powers to account. With the passing of Mr International Law, the promise that all states, regardless of size or strength, are equal before the law retreats further into the distance. Can Asean remain a resilient regional institution when the international rules that bind its members are being blown apart? How can it resolve the Myanmar crisis without recourse to international law? And how will it manage US–China rivalry in the South China Sea or negotiate a meaningful Code of Conduct when the very rules underpinning such efforts lie buried in the Strait of Hormuz? How is Asean to avert a crisis in the Strait of Malacca if major powers like the US no longer abide by the rules that govern international conduct? What would stop a predatory power from closing the strait if no one is willing or able to hold it to account? The Asean Charter commits member states to uphold international law, including international humanitarian law. Modelled on the United Nations Charter, it binds members “to renounce aggression and the threat or use of force or any other actions

Silence of the law signals decaying world order

inconsistent with international law”. Asean’s ability to “navigate its future together” – the theme of the recent 48th summit – depends on the very rules and norms embedded in international law that the association has long embraced. The founding purpose of international law was both ambitious and necessary: to ensure that states renounced war as the default instrument of statecraft after it had claimed more than 20 million innocent lives during World War II. Although international law has not eliminated war, it has minimised disorder by promoting predictability in international relations. Without it, the UN Charter’s pledge “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”, risks becoming little more than an empty aspiration. International law provides a common language through which states justify, contest and moderate their actions. Even when its rules are breached, they remain relevant: violations are recognised as such and justification is often sought within the legal framework itself. In doing so, international law preserves a measure of predictability in an otherwise uncertain world. There is a particular tragedy in the manner of its demise. International law was not overthrown by its enemies or dismantled by those who openly rejected it. It was weakened from within – by those who claimed to defend it and, when tested, chose expedience over principle. Like the Praetorian Guard, entrusted with safeguarding the order it served, its guardians became its arbiters and ultimately its undoing. By claiming the authority to decide when rules applied and when they

no longer commands consistent adherence. Yet, it is premature to conclude that international law has disappeared. Its legacy endures in institutions, treaties, jurisprudence and in the expectations of many states for whom rules remain a safeguard against unequal power. Despite its weaknesses, the world is better off with international rules than without them. Their continued relevance will depend on whether states – large and small – reaffirm the principles that once underpinned them, in both word and conduct. For Asean members, international law is not abstract; it is a framework in which sovereignty, centrality and neutrality can coexist with legitimacy. Sadly, its decline leaves a more uncertain environment. Without widely respected rules governing the use of force, international relations risk being shaped less by shared norms than by relative capability. The language of law may persist but its authority depends on consistent practice. Without it, interpretation will give way to expediency. International law did not fail for lack of design. Its future, as in its past, depends on states’ willingness to accept restraint, even when inconvenient. Rebuilding the world order will be difficult without these rules and harder still if Asean members set them aside for narrow national interests at the expense of the common good that has served the organisation for 60 years. B.A. Hamzah is a former university lecturer and fellow at Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Military interventions without clear legal mandate, selective interpretations of self-defence and the uneven application of norms have undermined the coherence and credibility of the international order. – REUTERSPIC

selective interpretations of self defence and the uneven application of norms have undermined the coherence and credibility of the international order. Each departure from principle is often justified as necessary or exceptional. Yet, over time, these exceptions will accumulate into a pattern that is difficult to reconcile with the system’s original purpose. The events of February 2026 and their aftermath, including the use of force against Iran and actions extending into Lebanon without clear UN Security Council authorisation or an evident case of imminent self defence, marked a turning point in world history. What was once contested at the margins is now asserted more openly at the centre. The prohibition on the use of force – long a cornerstone of the system –

did not, they transformed law into an instrument of discretion. The joint US and Israeli operations in Iran and Lebanon have resulted in serious violations of international humanitarian law and of further eroding the global legal order. Strikes on civilian infrastructure, universities and residential areas have been cited as undermining the laws of armed conflict and the principles of the UN Charter. What was lost in that moment was not merely compliance but trust – the confidence that rules bind the strong as they do the weak. As that trust has faded, so too has faith in the system’s authority, with power increasingly overriding principle. The erosion of international law will have repercussions beyond Asean, further weakening its centrality. Military interventions without clear legal mandate,

Education retains its importance in the Malaysian landscape for parents, students and stakeholders. The changes are fast paced with new developments in new fields of study such as cybersecurity, data protection, augmented and virtual reality, machine learning in education, digital education and artificial Intelligence. Leading the way are universities, who are invited to showcase their latest programmes, curriculum and content in our Education Focus for 2026.

thesun.my

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker