President Donald Trump declared in a New York Times interview that he “doesn’t need international law.” Asked if anything could constrain his use of power, Trump responded, “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” For Trump, then, obedience to international law, and to one’s “own morality,” are the only things that can inform decisions in matters of international relations, revealing a hole in his thinking, and likewise, a deficit in public discourse.
International law has come to be considered an almost sacred source of moral direction and standards in international affairs. And yet, especially over the past several decades, malign actors have corrupted and abused international law and shown its weaknesses as a system without underlying moral support, and without serious penalties. International law has not stopped wars of aggression or civil wars, much less the denial of individual rights, both of which are increasing around the world. What is more, international law is today often invoked to defend aggression and human rights violations, and is twisted to confer legitimacy upon despotic regimes.
As a result, international law, and the “rules-based international order,” are losing legitimacy, revealing a dangerous vacuum. In fact, Trump doesn’t need international law, but he and all national leaders need a framework of universally valid moral principles, and the capacity to apply reason in bringing those to bear on decisions. In other words, they need natural law. Natural law refers to transcendent, timeless and universal moral precepts that should inform rulers and citizens alike, to which positive law should conform.
While often abused by kings and popes, the failure to constrain absolute power has commonly been seen as an abuse of natural law. Natural law is the source of standards regarding the moral equality of all people, and the protection of human rights and dignity. The fundamental basis for evaluating the legitimacy of regimes thus lies in principles derived from natural law.
The abduction of Venezuelan ruler Nicolas Maduro has been widely criticized as a violation of international law, but it can be justified on the basis of natural law. John Locke, perhaps the primary influence on America’s political creed, considered international relations an ungovernable state of nature, and presumably would have been deeply skeptical of international law or any form of global governance. But he also wrote that a civil state would be justified in intervention abroad in order to prevent an egregious violation of natural law. While the seizure of an illegitimate and destructive despot in order to bring him before a court may have rational and moral grounds, any intention to plunder Venezuela’s resources, and to support the continuing denial of natural rights by Maduro’s henchmen would suggest that the abduction was a good thing, consistent with natural law, but done for the wrong reasons.
International law emerged on the foundation of natural law. The 17th Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, considered the grandfather of the “rules-based international system,” sought to keep alive natural law values, following the decline of Christendom, in the form of international rules to regulate the conduct of war. But subsequent proliferation and rationalization have created a transnational legal superstructure far removed from its sources in religious and national ethical culture, which no longer furnish discourse. The reification of international law seems to have short-circuited our capacity for moral reasoning, severed our connection to tradition, and hollowed out its lessons. Natural law is now only dimly perceived as a shadow on the walls of our cave.
Reference to natural law may be rare in liberal democracies, where freedom is often now taken for granted, but its obduracy can be seen among many for whom it is denied. It is noteworthy that contemporary political movements against repressive regimes generally make reference not to abstract international law and anodyne human rights standards, but to constitutional and vivid moral principles from their own traditions, to show that authoritarians have usurped power; that they violate moral standards spiritually rooted in the society, and show disrespect and distrust of the people. From Venezuela to Belarus to Iran, these movements seek a return to order, to moral and institutional norms, where excessive and lawless control has disordered traditional society.
Perhaps President Trump’s words will help reveal a need to understand, and respect the natural law ideas that animated the country’s founding. America’s strength has not been built on military power alone, but on policies that more often than not, demonstrated respect for the rights and dignity of other peoples. Many could cite counter-examples, but America has been widely admired as a superpower that used its influence to promote and defend liberty and democracy. In doing so, America’s leaders have not been motivated mainly by an obligation to follow international law, and they have occasionally violated or twisted international law when they felt it necessary. Our best leaders have been guided by moral standards from natural law traditions. With freedom increasingly challenged, and moral distinctions blurred by the contradictions of international law, attention to natural law is more important than ever.
