It seems that we have entered a period of endless war. The undeclared American war “Epic Fury” (the name of the attack on Iran) and Israel’s new murderous campaign has replaced the “cosmopolitan order of rules” heralded by those who saw the “end of history” after the fall of communism. The “perpetual peace” of Kant and Habermas has been replaced by “perpetual war and its threat.” We live in a “global state of exception.” A situation where governance, military strategies, and armaments are closely linked to the needs of capitalism. At the beginning of the century, the “rogue state” and the “failing state” were the ideological terms that justified attacks and invasions by the major powers and the neo-colonial occupation of regions and states. Today, references to these distinctions have been limited. 

Trump attacks Venezuela and Iran, gives every possible assistance to Israel without any specific explanation or credible justification. He simply boasts like a spoiled child in the schoolyard, flaunting his masculinity and power. How can we understand such policies from a state that rhetorically supported the “liberal rule of law” and cosmopolitanism? For about sixty years, the US, with its enormous war machine, has been losing wars from Vietnam and Afghanistan to Iraq. The last military helicopter leaving Saigon or Kabul is the symbol of this ongoing failure. But military defeats reflect the broader retreat of the US in the international distribution of power and capital. This is where the usefulness of the state of exception comes in. The ruler or sovereign does not need to explain or justify the suspension of the law, the abolition of normal neighborly relations, attacks, and assassinations. If, as Carl Schmitt says, the sovereign is he who imposes the state of exception, then the attacks on Venezuela or Iran are carried out so that everyone understands who the ruler is. 

It sounds like the last roll of the dice for an empire in decline and decay, a reality show for the domestic audience. To paraphrase Baudrillard, Gaza, Venezuela, and Iran were created so that Trump could be constantly on television and write his incoherent messages on Truth Social. It was done for the image, a reality show, that is more important to Americans than reality. But for Palestinians and Iranians, there is no image on television, only death, destruction, and the breakdown of society.

International Institutions 

Until the mid-2010s, an international institutional system under the UN and a rudimentary international law under the supervision and dominance of the US still existed. Today, international institutions have been sidelined, starting with the UN, which Trump replaced with the “Peace Committee,” a euphemism for the constant attacks and wars with which he governs. But before this ridiculous committee of dictators and Trump’s sycophants, the US had left 60 international organizations and treaties. These included the WHO, the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, the treaty on women, and the International Criminal Court. But while international organizations functioned poorly before Trump, international law had fallen into disrepute. Those involved in it knew this but either concealed it or pretended otherwise. Why? 

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and Iran, Maduro’s abduction and the assassination of Khomeini and part of the Iranian leadership violated various rules of international law, first and foremost Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. The Charter allows the use of force only after approval by the United Nations Security Council or in cases of self-defense. Neither Venezuela nor Iran were preparing or in a position to attack the US. Therefore, the invasion was a “crime of aggression and use of unjustified force” against another state, the most serious international crime according to the Nuremberg decision. These violations of international law justify Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus, US of Iraq, Putin’s of Ukraine, and will be used as a precedent by China when it decides to attack Taiwan. In other words, we have the “Putinization” of Trump. The invasion of Ukraine has been condemned by the International Court of Justice; the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, as well as for Netanyahu. However, both are free, traveling and meeting their friends. Netanyahu comes and goes to the US. The precedent set may be repeated in Greenland, Panama, or Cuba.

Since World War II, international law has moved between realistic pragmatism and legalistic formalism. At the one realist end, international law is not a sacred text; it does not give single correct answers. It provides a “professional vocabulary” for conducting arguments. At the other liberal extreme, an international rule of law has developed. It differs from politics and sets restrictions and constraints on power and the powerful. Its rules have internal consistency and coherence, their violation by major powers is not the result of weaknesses in the law, but of random political factors that prevent full compliance. But do we have an international rule of law governing international relations, as liberals and professors of international law swear? Unfortunately for weak states – such as Ukraine, Palestine, Venezuela, Iran, Greece – this is not the case.

International Law

International law differs from national law on all critical issues. It is soft, compliance depends on the goodwill of states, its norms are result of state consent that can be withdrawn. There is no world government or legislator, no courts to interpret it, and no police force to enforce it. We saw this recently with the International Court of Justice rulings ordering an end to Russian and Israeli attacks. The rulings were thrown in the trash by Putin and Netanyahu, as were many others before them. International law resembles the controversial analyses of international relations commentators, whom we hear so much today, often saying nothing or repeating banalities and platitudes. As the most renowned professor of international law, Marti Koskenniemi, put it, “the international lawyer is considered naive from a philosophical and political point of view. He is either a utopian socialist or a fan of free market cosmopolitanism.” Left-wing intellectual Perry Anderson went further: “A realistic assessment is that international law is neither truly international nor genuine law.”

When the stakes are highest—war, occupation, death—international law, like foreign policy, economic arguments, and military strategy, becomes just another factor that governments and generals take into account. It is used when it supports their interests and rejected if it creates real or imagined constraints. The Israeli government appeared before the International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa v. Israel, but Netanyahu called the charge of genocide “absurd” and stated that the International Criminal Court should not issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, which would not affect his actions anyway. The idea that a little more or a little better justice will free us from disputes, wars, and atrocities is the noble lie of international relations. The old saying inter armes silent leges (when weapons speak, the law is silent) still holds true. Law as a technical means of resolving or humanizing conflicts works until the powerful party rejects it. When raison d’état speaks, the law is silent. If it continues to speak, the powerful silence it.

But that is only one side of the coin. The larger part of international law constitutes the legal infrastructure of global capitalism. Trade and finance law, intellectual law, IMF and World Bank law regulate social life by distributing rights and obligations, privileges and vulnerabilities to states and classes around the world. As Koskenniemi says, “they are an omnipresent and extremely powerful aspect of the way we are all governed.” Trump’s policy of “gunboats, helicopters and oil” combines the two aspects of international law: the public law of the powerful and the private law of the rich. We have experienced this combination in Greece. We did not suffer military attack or invasion during the years of the Euro crisis. But European and international private law hit the country in ways that rival war. Tanks and banks (or American Petroleum), swords and words, shock and awe.

The exception becomes the rule

International institutions and international law still exist, but they cannot maintain order. The wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran raise the specter of global and even nuclear escalation. In the past, such moments were seen as signs of a hegemonic transition, such as from British to American global hegemony or from the Cold War to cosmopolitanism. But today, war does not herald a further decline in US hegemony. It simply internationalises the period in which the exception becomes the rule. This has already been happening for some time within states.[1] The pandemic has made the state of exception a mode of governance. It was a global rehearsal that gradually took on military characteristics. We have the militarization of economic life and policing, the intensification of repression and surveillance of citizens and politicians. Economic development as a whole is increasingly shaped by the logic of the military and security. The economy is coordinated with armaments and military requirements (remember Rearm Europe), social security is replaced by “national security.” The close relationship between war and capital characterizes the history of capitalism. Modern supply chains have their roots in colonialism and the slave trade. However, the current global situation is characterized by the increasing intertwining of “geopolitics” and economics as Sandto Mezzadra and Michael Hardt have argued. Areas of capitalist exploitation and accumulation intersect with the distribution of political power across the globe. Control of logistics, transport, and ports is a key feature of wars, sanctions and trade negotiations.

The “state of exception” militarizes society as a whole. “Liberal” capitalism easily aligns itself with nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and sexism. In Greece, as all over Europe, the attacks by riot police on opposition rallies and students, the repression of resistance and the extensive surveillance seek to impose obedience to all forms of authority. Ministers attack refugees and immigrants, rescuers and solidarity activists, feminists and active citizens. The constant propaganda in favor of Israel, the triumphalism about its power and military victories, create a climate of misery that glorifies the neighborhood bully even when he kills defenseless children. Militarism serves ideological and racial hierarchies. Exclusions of peopel and wars on weak support a militarized structure of governance coordinated with the demands of capital.

How can we resist this internationalization of the state of exception? Internally, through broad alliances against militarization, corruption, and the rise of racist rhetoric and action. Internationally, by returning to a grassroots internationalism based on material and local specificities and needs, not abstract claims of universality. Solidarity campaigns in Palestine are thus combined with movements for “women, life, freedom” in Iran or aid to Cuba. If we cannot stop the state of exception and wars, we can at least try to undermine their foundations, to return to the demand for a more general social transformation. Small victories in each country help the international resistance to move forward. 

[1] Costas Douzinas, States of Exception (Elgar, 2024)