For this week’s debate (17 September 2025), we are reviving the Grand Debate format to tackle what is arguably one of the most pressing issues of our time: the so-called rules-based international order, represented in this debate by some of its bodies such as the UN, ICJ, and ICC, and how it is holding up in the face of today’s crises. From the genocide in Palestine to the invasion of Ukraine, to the open dismissal of international rulings by states, many now question whether these institutions can even still be called “legal bodies,” given their lack of enforcement power.
In this format, debaters are encouraged to inform the organizer as soon as possible of their wish to participate, so they can prepare their 10-minute speeches with teammates in the week leading up to the event. Debaters may also indicate a preference for one side of the debate (proposition or opposition), after which the organizer will put the teams in contact so that preparation can begin (4 on each side). The motion for the debate, along with introductory background, is provided in this description.
Due to the sensitivity of the subject, speakers are expected to respect fundamental human rights and refrain from any form of hate speech. The organizer reserves the right to interrupt the debate at any time.
Motion:
This House Believes That Current Armed Conflicts Show That the Global Rules-Based Order Institutions Are Political Tools to Serve Global Powers, and Not Safeguards to prevent conflicts and ensure accountability.
***
From the League of Nations to the UN
The idea of a global order based on law rather than force is not new. After the devastation of World War I, the international community created the League of Nations (1919) to prevent aggression and mediate disputes. But the League failed spectacularly: it did not stop subsequent invasions, such as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria (1931) and Germany withdrawal in 1933 and its invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland. With no enforcement power and major powers acting outside its framework, the League collapsed with the outbreak of World War II.
The United Nations (UN), founded in 1945, was meant to learn from those failures. Unlike the League, it had stronger structures, including the Security Council with binding powers. But by granting veto power to the five permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China), it also embedded great-power privilege into the heart of the institution.
Today, some argue we may be witnessing the UN sliding down the same path as the League: unable to stop aggression, ignored or undermined by powerful states, and increasingly delegitimized. Just as the League of Nations was sidelined by unchecked aggression in the 1930s, the UN today is increasingly sidelined in conflicts like Ukraine and Palestine, where its resolutions are blocked or disregarded.
***
Alongside the UN, specialized bodies were created to handle specific aspects of international relations, each with a distinct mandate. Their track records reveal a complex mix of instrumental successes and profound systemic limitations.
- International Court of Justice (ICJ, 1945)
- Mandate: Created as the primary judicial organ of the United Nations to resolve legal disputes between member states and provide advisory opinions.
- Successes: It has effectively reduced international tensions by resolving sensitive diplomatic disputes through legal arbitration. Landmark cases include the peaceful settlement of the Burkina Faso-Mali border dispute (1986) and the adjudication of the Somalia-Kenya maritime boundary case (2021), providing a legal framework for cooperation.
- Failures and Limitations: Its fundamental weakness is the lack of a direct enforcement mechanism; compliance relies on state consent and the UN Security Council, which is often paralyzed by politics. Consequently, its authority is openly flouted by powerful states. The US refused compliance and withdrew from the court's compulsory jurisdiction after the Nicaragua case (1986) concerning Contra funding. Russia dismissed the court's provisional measures order to halt its invasion in the Ukraine ruling (2022). Most recently, Israel has widely ignored the court's 2024 legally binding order to prevent acts of genocide in Palestine and allow humanitarian aid, demonstrating the limit of its power in the face of determined opposition.
- International Criminal Court (ICC, 2002)
- Mandate: Established as a permanent independent tribunal to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes under the Rome Statute: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. It is a court of last resort, intervening only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute.
- Successes: It has delivered ground-breaking symbolic justice by holding high-ranking individuals accountable, ending decades of impunity for warlords and leaders. Historic convictions include Liberian President Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity and Congolese warlord Bosco Ntaganda for murder, rape, and sexual slavery.
- Failures and Limitations: The ICC faces intense criticism over perceived selective justice and an inherent bias against the Global South. Critics note that while it has prosecuted numerous African leaders, it has largely spared Western powers and their allies, whose nationals fall outside its jurisdiction unless referred by the UN Security Council, where vetoes often block action. This perceived inequity was starkly summarized when an official reportedly told ICC prosecutor Karim Khan that "the ICC was built for Africa and for thugs like Putin," capturing the deep cynicism about the court's application. Its practical power is also limited as it cannot arrest suspects on the territory of states that do not recognize its jurisdiction like the US, Russia, and China.
As an example, Its 2023 arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war crime of unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine demonstrated unprecedented courage and independence from the security council’s veto system might be seen as a success and a bold move. However, outside the state sanction of some of Russia’s economic activity, nothing really took place to uphold this warrant and Hungary’s Prime Minister meeting with Putin showcased this failure to act. Moreover, even though arrest warrants were issued against Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh as well as Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, the Prime Minister was able to travel freely through the airspace of countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute, which is against its rules, to meet with the US President.
- UN Peacekeeping
- Mandate: A primary tool used by the UN Security Council to help countries torn by conflict create the conditions for lasting peace. Operations include military, police, and civilian personnel working to stabilize security, protect civilians, and support political processes.
- Successes: Missions have been instrumental in stabilizing nations during fragile transitions and ending brutal conflicts. Key successes include overseeing Namibia's peaceful transition to independence (1990), disarming rebels and helping to end the devastating civil war in Sierra Leone, and providing critical humanitarian aid and stability operations in the Balkans following the Yugoslav Wars, though not without serious challenges and controversies in that region.
- Failures and Limitations: The effectiveness of peacekeeping is entirely dependent on the political will of the UN Security Council, which authorizes, funds, and sets their mandates. The use of the veto by permanent members (notably Russia and the US) has repeatedly paralyzed the international response to major crises, preventing robust action in Syria, Ukraine, and Palestine. This political deadlock often results in peacekeepers being deployed with weak, unclear, or impossible mandates (as was the case in the Srebrenica massacre in the Balkans and the Rwandan genocide), leaving them unable to protect civilians or effectively fulfill their mission.
And most recently, the US sanctioned Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, for her reports documenting possible war crimes and apartheid practices. By punishing a UN official for carrying out her mandate, the US not only undermined Albanese personally but also struck at the very independence of the UN system, further echoing how great powers bend institutions to their will.
***
The Debate
So, what are these institutions really?
- Safeguards to prevent conflicts and ensure accountability, humanity’s best effort to prevent domination by great powers all the while ensuring cooperation?
- Or political tools dressed up in the language of law to serve global powers, used selectively to protect the interests of the most powerful?
As the League of Nations collapsed under great-power defiance, are we watching history repeat itself with the UN?
Join us for a Grand Debate on the fate of the international order: is it still a shield for peace and justice, or has it always been a mask for power?
