In recent years, actions by the United States have significantly weakened the global framework of international law that emerged after World War II. Once seen as the backbone of global cooperation and legal norms, this rules-based system now faces a legitimacy crisis as U.S. foreign policy increasingly prioritizes unilateral power and national interest over multilateral legal agreements and institutions.
A Shift from Collective Norms to National Priorities
Under current leadership, U.S. foreign policy has moved sharply away from collective international commitments toward a focus on “America First” decision-making. Long-standing agreements and global treaties that aimed to promote peace, human rights, and legal accountability have been sidelined or abandoned in favor of strategic leverage and domestic political priorities.
This shift includes actions that many legal scholars view as undermining traditional notions of sovereignty and fair international adjudication. Institutions designed to enforce accountability beyond borders now face diminished cooperation and open criticism from Washington. As a result, the longstanding relationship between U.S. diplomacy and the global legal order has frayed, leaving allies and institutions struggling to adapt.
Erosion of Key Legal Institutions
Undermining International Courts and Norms
One of the most striking developments has been the targeting of international judicial bodies. Measures such as punitive restrictions against international prosecutors have disrupted mechanisms designed to hold individuals and states accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of global legal norms.
The weakening of entities like the International Criminal Court — once supported, even if only indirectly, by U.S. diplomatic engagement — has sent shockwaves through the global justice system. With financial pressures and restricted cooperation, the capacity of these institutions to deliver impartial justice is now under question.
Withdrawing from Environmental and Human Rights Frameworks
Beyond individual courts, the U.S. has withdrawn from major international agreements, including pivotal environmental accords and human rights councils. These withdrawals not only reduce U.S. moral authority in global discussions but also embolden other nations to re-evaluate their own participation in legal frameworks that promote universal standards.
International criticism has grown as other governments point to these moves as evidence that powerful nations can choose selective adherence to legal commitments — a trend that experts argue could accelerate global legal fragmentation.
Global Response and Future Implications
Countries across Europe, the Middle East, and beyond are now struggling to fill the leadership void left by the U.S., with many viewing recent policies as a retreat from collaborative internationalism. Allies who once counted on American engagement in peacekeeping, environmental protection, and collective security find themselves negotiating new diplomatic strategies.
Legal scholars warn that this erosion of global norms not only weakens accountability for state and non-state actors but potentially ushers in a period where might takes precedence over agreed legal principles — a world where international law may no longer serve as a reliable foundation for peace and justice.
