South Africa’s top diplomat is sounding an alarm over the erosion of international norms, arguing that the global community is sliding toward a state of systemic instability. Ambassador Zwelise Dangor, the Director-General of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), has warned that the current geopolitical climate is increasingly defined by a “lawless” world order where international law is applied selectively by the powerful.
The warning comes at a time of acute global tension, as conflicts in the Middle East and Europe expose the perceived paralysis of traditional peacekeeping mechanisms. Dangor suggests that the responsibility to prevent a total collapse of these norms no longer rests solely with the superpowers, but rather with middle powers—states that possess significant regional influence and diplomatic weight but lack the hegemony of global superpowers.
Central to this argument is the necessity for middle powers to push back against a lawless world order by leveraging their collective agency. By acting as a diplomatic bridge and insisting on the universal application of law, these nations can challenge a system where rules are often viewed as instruments of convenience for a few rather than protections for the many.
The Crisis of Selective Justice
For decades, the “rules-based international order” was presented as a framework to ensure peace, and security. Yet, Dangor posits that this framework has become fragmented. The disparity between how international law is invoked in some conflicts versus ignored in others has created a credibility gap that threatens the legitimacy of global governance.
This tension is most visible in the current proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where South Africa has brought a case alleging that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The case is not merely a legal dispute but a symbolic challenge to the perceived double standards of the West, particularly regarding the enforcement of human rights and sovereignty.
Dangor argues that when the most powerful states bypass international legal obligations without consequence, it signals to the rest of the world that power, not law, is the ultimate arbiter of global affairs. This perception, he suggests, encourages a shift toward unilateralism and increases the risk of unchecked aggression across different theaters of conflict.
Defining the Role of Middle Powers
In international relations, middle powers are typically defined as states that are not superpowers but are capable of exerting influence through multilateralism, diplomacy, and economic stability. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, and Indonesia often find themselves in this category, navigating the friction between competing global poles.
Dangor envisions a strategic role for these nations that goes beyond simple neutrality. Rather than merely balancing between the U.S., China, and Russia, middle powers can form a cohesive bloc to demand institutional reform. This approach involves shifting from a passive adherence to existing structures toward an active reshaping of how those structures operate.
The strategy involves several key diplomatic pillars:
- Multilateral Coordination: Strengthening alliances within the Global South to create a unified front on issues of sovereignty and human rights.
- Institutional Pressure: Advocating for the reform of the United Nations Security Council to reflect current geopolitical realities rather than the post-1945 power structure.
- Legal Activism: Using international courts and tribunals to establish precedents that hold all states, regardless of size or alliance, accountable to the same standard.
The Paralysis of the UN Security Council
A primary driver of the “lawless” environment is the frequent deadlock within the UN Security Council (UNSC). The veto power held by the five permanent members often prevents decisive action in the face of mass atrocities or clear violations of international law, rendering the body ineffective in the eyes of many developing nations.
Dangor’s critique points to a systemic failure where the mechanism designed to maintain global peace has become a tool for protecting strategic interests. This institutional failure creates a vacuum that middle powers are uniquely positioned to fill. By coordinating outside the narrow constraints of the UNSC—through the General Assembly or regional blocs—these nations can build a broader consensus for intervention or sanctions.
The goal is to move toward a multipolar world that is not characterized by chaos, but by a distributed form of authority where the “rules” are co-authored and collectively enforced, rather than dictated from the top down.
Comparative Influence in Global Governance
| Model | Primary Driver | Approach to Law | Key Stakeholders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unipolar/Hegemonic | Military/Economic Power | Selective Application | Superpowers |
| Multipolar/Fragmented | Competing Spheres | Contested Norms | Regional Powers |
| Multilateral/Rules-Based | Diplomatic Consensus | Universal Application | Middle Powers & UN |
Implications for the Global South
For the Global South, the stakes of a lawless world order are disproportionately high. Smaller and less powerful nations are often the first to suffer when international norms collapse, as they lack the military or economic shields to withstand the pressures of larger states.
Dangor’s call for middle powers to lead is, a call for a protective diplomatic umbrella. If middle powers can successfully push for a system where international law is absolute, it provides a layer of security for the most vulnerable states. This shift would move the global order away from a “might makes right” philosophy toward one of strategic autonomy and legal equality.
The current trajectory suggests a world where regional conflicts are increasingly handled through bilateral deals or proxy wars rather than through established international channels. To counter this, Dangor emphasizes that middle powers must refuse to accept the “inevitability” of this decline and instead insist on the viability of a legalistic global order.
The next critical checkpoint for this diplomatic push will be the continued deliberations and potential provisional measures issued by the ICJ regarding the situation in Gaza, as well as the upcoming summits of the BRICS+ bloc, where the expansion of middle-power cooperation is expected to be a central theme. These events will test whether the call for a rules-based pushback can translate into a coordinated global policy.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the role of middle powers in today’s diplomacy in the comments below.
