The specter of a return to “might makes right” in international relations, a chilling phrase harking back to eras of unchecked aggression, is gaining renewed attention following stark warnings from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. His recent pronouncements, delivered against the backdrop of ongoing conflicts and rising global tensions, urge a firm defense of international law and a rejection of the notion that power justifies actions on the world stage. The core of the concern—and the reason it’s resonating beyond European capitals—is the potential erosion of the rules-based international order and the implications for global stability. This isn’t simply a historical echo; it’s a present-day assessment of a world grappling with complex geopolitical shifts.
Scholz’s warnings, delivered in speeches and interviews, specifically address the war in Ukraine and the broader implications for European security. He argues that allowing Russia’s actions to stand unchallenged would send a dangerous signal, emboldening other actors to pursue their interests through force rather than diplomacy. The chancellor has consistently advocated for increased military spending and a stronger European defense capability, not as an end in itself, but as a deterrent against potential aggression. The debate surrounding Scholz’s position isn’t about pacifism versus militarism, but about the most effective way to prevent a descent into a world where international norms are disregarded. Understanding the historical context of “might makes right” is crucial to grasping the urgency of his message.
The Historical Weight of “Might Makes Right”
The phrase “might makes right” – or its Latin equivalent, jus ad bellum – has a long and troubling history. It’s often attributed to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who described the Peloponnesian War as a conflict driven by the strong doing what they could and the weak suffering what they must. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy details Thucydides’s analysis of power dynamics in ancient Greece. Throughout history, the principle has been invoked to justify conquest, colonialism, and countless acts of violence. The 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche also explored the concept, though his interpretation was more nuanced and focused on the will to power as a fundamental human drive. However, the phrase is most often associated with a cynical view of international relations where morality and law are subordinate to the interests of the powerful.
The two World Wars of the 20th century served as a brutal reminder of the consequences of unchecked power. The rise of Nazi Germany, fueled by a belief in racial superiority and a disregard for international treaties, led to unimaginable devastation. The post-World War II era saw the establishment of international institutions like the United Nations, designed to prevent a recurrence of such conflicts by upholding international law and promoting peaceful resolution of disputes. The current concern is that these institutions are being weakened by a resurgence of nationalist sentiment and a willingness to challenge the existing order. The implications of this shift are far-reaching, impacting everything from trade and security to human rights and environmental protection.
Ukraine as a Test Case
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is widely seen as a direct challenge to the principles of international law and territorial integrity. Russia’s actions, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, have been condemned by the international community. The United Nations maintains a dedicated webpage documenting the humanitarian crisis and ongoing efforts to address the conflict. Chancellor Scholz argues that a failure to hold Russia accountable would embolden other authoritarian regimes to pursue similar aggressive policies. He has been a vocal supporter of sanctions against Russia and has called for increased military aid to Ukraine.
However, the response to the conflict has not been without its complexities. Concerns about escalating the conflict and the potential for nuclear war have led to a cautious approach from some Western powers. The economic consequences of sanctions have also been significant, impacting global energy markets and contributing to inflation. These factors highlight the difficult balancing act between upholding international law and avoiding a wider conflict. The situation in Ukraine is therefore not just a regional crisis; it’s a test case for the future of the international order.
Beyond Ukraine: A Broader Pattern of Assertiveness
The concerns raised by Chancellor Scholz extend beyond the conflict in Ukraine. China’s growing economic and military power, its assertive claims in the South China Sea, and its increasingly authoritarian domestic policies are also contributing to a sense of unease. Similarly, tensions in the Middle East, including the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen, demonstrate the fragility of regional stability. These developments suggest a broader pattern of great power competition and a willingness to challenge the existing international norms. The rise of non-state actors, such as terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations, further complicates the picture.
The implications of this shift are particularly concerning for smaller and medium-sized countries that rely on the international legal framework to protect their sovereignty, and interests. If “might makes right” becomes the prevailing principle, these countries could be vulnerable to coercion and aggression from more powerful states. Here’s why Scholz’s call for a stronger European defense capability is seen by some as a necessary step to ensure that Europe can defend its own interests and values. The debate over European strategic autonomy – the ability to act independently of the United States – is central to this discussion.
The challenge lies in finding a way to balance the need for a strong defense with the importance of maintaining international cooperation and upholding international law. A purely nationalistic approach could lead to a dangerous spiral of arms races and increased tensions. A more effective strategy would involve strengthening international institutions, promoting multilateralism, and investing in diplomacy and conflict resolution. The future of the international order depends on a collective commitment to these principles.
Looking ahead, the coming months will be critical in determining whether the international community can effectively address the challenges posed by the erosion of the rules-based order. Key events to watch include the ongoing negotiations over Ukraine, the evolving dynamics between the United States and China, and the upcoming meetings of international organizations like the United Nations General Assembly. The next steps taken by major powers will signal whether they are committed to upholding international law or whether they are willing to accept a world where “might makes right.”
What are your thoughts on Chancellor Scholz’s warnings? Share your perspective in the comments below, and please share this article with others who are interested in this important topic.
