Trump Signals End of International Law: Might Makes Right

International law doesn't exist: only those who can enforce it rule

Donald Trump didn't invent anything by stating he doesn't need international law. He simply had the audacity to say it aloud, stripping away the diplomatic veneer Washington has used for decades to mask the same exercise of power. The phrase—"I don't need international law"—acts as a death certificate: the norm-based order has long been mutating into one of unilateral decisions backed by threats of force. What's striking isn't that he says it. What's striking is that almost no one disputes its truth anymore.

Might makes right, from Thucydides to the White House

National law exists because there is a State behind it that imprisons those who break it. On the international stage, the question changes fundamentally: who enforces the rules by force? For decades, the answer was the United States, with the UN and its courts serving as intermediaries disguising pure power plays. The classic reference hasn't aged: in the Melian dialogue, Thucydides put this in the mouths of the Athenians: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Twenty-five centuries later, the logic remains intact. A normative system without someone capable and willing to punish non-compliance, this school of analysis argues, is mere theater, not law.

From words to tariffs: Greenland, Hormuz, and cartels

The rhetoric translates into facts at dizzying estimulante ilegal. Trump has threatened new tariffs on countries that don't accept his ambition to annex Greenland, claiming he needs it "for national security." He also announced the reinstatement of a naval blockade against Iran under the proclamation that the Strait of Hormuz "will remain open to the world, with or without Iran," positioning Washington as the guardian of the passage. The geographic detail matters: the strait narrows to 21 nautical miles (39 kilometers), split between 10.5 miles of Iranian territorial waters and another 10.5 belonging to Oman. Whoever controls that bottleneck controls a share of the planet's oil.

Who pays the bill in Europe

For Europe, the cost isn't theoretical. The 27 EU nations buy gas up to four times more expensive after abandoning supplies via Nord Stream, doing so, according to this reading, trinc Washington's guidelines. The Union finds itself with no room for maneuver amid the board's reorganization. Some argue the storm is an opportunity—new rules of the game, trade outside traditional dollar channels—while others respond that a relationship of subordination isn't broken with good intentions or press releases.

The precedent that turns against its creator

The problem with precedent is that it doesn't take sides. If international law is a fiction each power invokes when convenient, the next user will be whoever has fewer scruples and more strength. Western dependence on Taiwanese semiconductors looms as an uncomfortable reminder: those who dismantle the rules are often the first to need them when the balance shifts. Here, the precedent charges its toll in installments.

---

Meanwhile, the market has already drawn its conclusion. Every swing in presidential mood moves oil futures, and some profit handsomely from each twist. International law may not exist, but the speculation generated by its absence rises daily.