International law and competition. In this moment of global upheaval and disruption, can western countries uphold International Order based on the principles of the United Nations charter . Is the current framework for International Law adequate to govern engagement between nations as well as with nonstate actors . Or does it need rethinking . How can multilateral institutions help to preserve International Law and ensure accountability . I am pleased to welcome dr. Matias spektor, whose profound insight and expertise uniquely positioned him to discuss the complex issues at hand. Hes a professor of politics and International Relations and founder of the school of International Relations at the Vargas Foundation in sao paulo, a top think tank in latin america. He was a visiting fellow at the Princeton University institute for International Regional studies and is currently a fellow at the Georgetown Americas Institute and specializes in international security, transnational repression, climate politics, and other issues with a focus on brazil, latin america, and the global south. Following his keynote, he will be joined by my colleague for a brief moderated conversation. Constanze steizenmuller is the director of the United States and europe and the chair of german relations here at brookings and has led the organization of the lecture for several years since taking it on from our colleague, ted, who established it here at brookings. Thank you to ted and the team of our Europe Center for such excellent coordination on this event. After the conversation, we will be joined by a distinguished group of panelists to discuss how western institutions have responded to the wars in ukraine and gaza and what role the globe can play in revitalizing a robust International Order based on transparency and accountability. Let me introduce them briefly. John bellinger iii is an adjunct fellow at the council on Foreign Relations and cochair of the global law Public Policy group at arnold and porter. Oona hathaway is a professor at yellow law school and was the keynote speaker for our 2023 briar lecture on the russia aggression against ukraine and the International Legal order. We are delighted to have her back with us today. Bruce jones is our colleague here at brookings and is a senior fellow at the strobe Talbert Center for security, strategy, and technology, and our center for asia policy studies. Our moderator today is ishaan tharoor, anchor of todays worldview, the postss daily column on politics. We are currently streaming live and on the record. We will be taking questions from viewers that can be submitted by email or through social media, using the hashtag International Law. Let me turn the floor over to our distinguished guests. [applause] ishaan thank you very much, suzanne. Good morning, everyone. Its almost 10 years ago to the day that Stephen Breyer stood here in the auditorium of brookings and delivered his first speech, a fear with a series of 10 afterwards in his name. Earlier this week, i stood in his office. An office that he called home when he served in the Supreme Court for 28 years. I had the privilege to meet Justice Brown jackson. She had not only replaced him on the bench, but in his office as well. She really made it her office. I stood there in the room, where justice Stephen Breyer spent 28 years thinking about important decisions that affected millions of americans. I could see the capital through the window in his office. I imagine that the view him of the important balance of power between politics and the judiciary, a separation of powers so instrumental to our democracies. While in the office and on the court, Justice Breyer was aware that the will of law doesnt stop at the border, it plays an International Role in our world. In that first lecture, Stephen Breyer analyzed five areas in which he developed the development of law in other parts of the world having a direct effect on u. S. Judicial decisionmaking. In doing so, he began his annual lecture series on exploring Critical Issues around the intersection of International Law, justice, and foreign, looking to offer Effective Solutions from legal and policy experts that they can implement and in our increasingly interconnected world. The relevance of the topic has only increased, as we all know, since that first lecture. The rule based International Order has become more contested in the last decade, as opposed to before. Its critical we emphasize the importance of rules based order, rulesbased intellectual order. Today, professor Matias Spektor will ask the question, can these countries uphold the International Order . It was established during a time of u. S. Supremacy and we now obviously live in a time of a more contested era. Is the Current International framework adequate to govern engagement between nations . The netherlands are strong supporters of the International Rule of law, which is why recently in the netherlands, together with ukraine and the european commission, we hosted Restorative Justice for ukraine at the world forum in the hague. From the start, the International Community has rallied to ensure justice for the victims in ukraine and hold the perpetrators of these crimes and violations accountable. Nevertheless, the bulk of the work lies ahead of us and it will take considerable time and effort from the community to support ukraines continued fight for justice during an ongoing war. But, we need to remain united in our quest for justice in ukraine. Its not easy, but it is important, and sometimes what is most important is also difficult. It is a test, a test to see if multilateral institutions that we have relied upon in the last 75 years can carry us through to the next 75 and beyond. Thank you very much. [applause] matias good morning, everybody. This year, my hometown celebrated the 125th Year Anniversary of the first hague peace conference. In 1899, someone hundred delegates from 26 countries gathered for three months at the royal residence in the hague. It was a major milestone. Standards for conflict resolution between nations were set and it was the start of the comingofage of the hague as an International Site of peace and justice and im proud that many of the institutions set up in the last 125 years to uphold the International Rules based order are hosted by my city, including the u. N. International court of justice and the International Criminal court. The city of the hague continues to do its part to support the rule of law following the russian invasion of ukraine. The International Center for the crime of aggression is being operated from the hague. The hague also backs the ongoing initiative for the creation of an International Anticorruption work to tackle the abuse of public power for private gains by national leaders. But there is still a long way to go. The last two years have shown a decreasing respect for rulesbased International Order and the current policies of western governments that helped to establish it. We see this behavior is related to the breaches around International Law and in the lack of support for the imposing of sanctions against authoritarian regimes in a year in which half of the World Population will be represented at elections, its a huge cause for concern and, therefore, im grateful to the Brookings Institute and the support of the netherlands and missy for organizing todays discussion. Allowing for further reflection on whats needed for International Law to continue to matter against the backdrop of these new realities. Standards like those set in 1899, are they still up to date . Or are fundamental changes needed . Just as the Permanent Court of arbitration for radical was a radical innovation in its time, there is no a clear need for innovation making International Law and citizens more resilient. I am sure that this edition of justice Stephen Breyers lecture will be a special one and that the speakers will give us plenty of food for thought. Thank you. [applause] ishaan good morning, we dont need a fourth introduction. Matias, you have been introduced, we are looking forward to your lecture and then you and i will engage in conversation. Come on up. [applause] matias thank you. Its a real treat to be here. Its a treat to be delivering the 2024 Justice Breyer lecture. The list of previous lectures is extremely inspiring unless you are of course standing where i am, in which case it is extremely daunting. The requirement of the lecture is that the lecture explores Critical Issues at the intersection of International Law, justice, and Foreign Policy. This is what decided me to try to Say Something about how we might think about the impact of great power change, Great Power Competition, on International Law. The question i wanted to tackle today in particular is this what is in store for the global legal order now that the west, for all of its power and influence, seems to no longer be hegemonic. In other words, as we enter a new age of strategic comfort to, should we be concerned about the socalled rules based order . And if so, crucially, what should be the precise nature of our concern . Finding answers here, its rather urgent at this time. If you move in transatlantic circles or you read newspapers or magazines in the english language, you will find that there is a very specific storyline that is taking place and gaining a lot of traction. The Bumper Sticker version of these stories, which are not that new, it is a rehash of an older story, but in a new forum it could be the liberal west against the illiberal west. This storyline is everywhere. It holds that the future of International Law hinges upon the changing balance of power between liberals and there represent and their enemies. The enemies include liberals inside the west, the basket of deplorables, illiberal great powers like autocratic russia and autocratic china, and the collection, multitude, of nonwestern states that are apparently devoid of any strong moral commitments and are unwilling to take sides. They are taking the opportunity to hedge their bets in this changing global geopolitical landscape. This storyline deeply influences how we converse about the issues of the day. If you consider commentaries in the west about the war in ukraine, heres the narrative. As the west has levied a punishing sanctions against russia, the Chinese Support for russia has seriously complicated the enforcement of International Law. At the same time, the vast majority of developing countries have condemned russian aggression at the uns General Assembly but they have refused to impose sanctions, which also complicates the implementation of International Law. If a postcolonial world is not willing to punish such glaring violations of the principle of selfdetermination that in theory they fought for for such a long time, the argument goes, it must be because either they dont really like rules, or because they resent to the west somehow, or because they are beholden to putin. And, of course, add to this narrative that is taking shape, there seems to be a readiness on the parts of electorates across the west to reassess support for ukraine potentially jeopardizing, big time, the norm of territorial integrity. We can turn to the war in gaza and you see the same narrative taking shape. In the aftermath of the atrocities committed by hamas, western commentators have found it challenging to interpret the ensuing events. One issue, of course, has been making sense of the south african accusations of genocide against israel at the icj. Another has been to make sense of the widespread support that the accusation has received from countries as varied as ireland and pakistan. So, not just countries from the global south. Furthermore, many postcolonial states, as you know, have refrained from designating hamas a terrorist organization. Add to this, western societies, as you know better than i do, have been deeply divided along demographic lines on the issue of israel, further complicating the capacity of the International Community to provide some sort of mediation. Although explanations as to whats going on on these fears has varied in normas leak, depending on what you read, they inevitably circle back to these ideas that there are changes in the Global Distribution of power and influence that could very seriously impact the global legal order moving forward. Its easy to see why the liberal west versus the illiberal west motto could be so attractive. The idea of a lawabiding western community confronting rivals who are bent on upending the existing legal order is appealing in its simplicity. But today i want to argue that this mode of thinking is empirically on accurate and dangerous. Inaccurate and dangerous. It assumes that the rules based order is an artifact of the west, rather than the outcome of hardfought political battles across cultural and regional divides. Inaccurate also because it ignores the extent to which the west often hurts the very legal principles it helped create and the degree to which its officials have been willing to sacrifice norms of the legal order when convenient. The west against the rest framework is politically dangerous, i would argue, because it fails to acknowledge that winning the battle against liberalism against illiberalism at home and applaud involves connecting voices in the west and outside the west. So, if we are to properly protect the global legal order had a time of strategic competition between great powers, we should retire the us versus them approach and come up with something better. So, to begin, i want to turn to history. I want to tell you a Little Something about the evolution of the modern legal order, by which i mean the codified norms, rules, and institutions that govern relations between states. Retelling the story on the standpoint of 2014, i think is important because much of the contemporary debate in its telling assumes that we are really talking about a western invention. This has a lot of problems attached to it. In the european order of the 17th and 18th century, the colonial system determined who enjoyed legal standing, who could trade, where migrants would flow, and whose culture would provide acceptable pathways for progress. By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, european dominance on the International Legal system had come under serious challenge. The challenge came from the countries leading the revolt, the United States, japan, india, china, haiti in the caribbean, and the bulk of the newly independent latin america. The legal opposition against empire opened the door to key struggles over freedom that would play out well into the 20th century. Think of the struggle for sovereignty and self cologne selfdetermination for racial equality and economic justice, for cultural liberation. From the 19 century onwards, this network of laws and legal procedures began to feature some very limited but nonetheless important liberal ingredients, ingredients drawn from the legal tradition of political philosophy. For example, the idea that hes can peace can be fostered by Global Wealth and Global Wealth can be fostered by freetrade. Or the idea that one should have formal limits on the use of force and these should be crafted in ways that protect the weak against the strong. Or the idea that slavery should be banned and the rights of individuals should be protected by the International Community. Or the idea that selfdetermination and sovereignty rights should provide a substitute for empire. Of course, there can be no doubt that first europe, than the United States, played a phenomenal role in setting up these liberal rules. But it would be a big historica