Debate Night: International Law

2026 has only been here for several weeks, but it's already been a roller coaster for international relations. Some parts of it are continuations of the politics of the past year: Xi Jinping repeated again in his new year's speech that China will take over Taiwan, by force if necessary, and Vladimir Putin seems as dedicated as ever to take as much of Ukraine as he can by force. These things are destabilizing, but they don't come as a surprise.

The true shock has come from the United States. The country had already turned mercurial and unpredictable under Donald Trump's second presidency, and this has only been amplified. This includes the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the threats to take over Greenland by force, the threats of intervening in the anti-government protests in Iran, and the creation of a "Board of Peace" for Gaza that is separate from all United Nations bodies or any other recognized international institutions. This is a whirlwind of politics that is difficult to follow and even more difficult to deal with.

A common counter given to the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis, and increasingly, the Americans, is that what they are doing is against international law. Politicians, think tanks, university professors, and many regular citizens opposed to the current state of international affairs have often referred to "violations of international law" when referring to modern-day geopolitical movements. However, these statements do not appear to fundamentally change the geopolitical course. This raises the question - how relevant is international law still in today's world?

International law is a unique creature. In contrast to laws that are formulated on the national or regional level, they are not automatically enforced, as the court systems stay at the level of the nation and the region. While there are enforcement mechanisms, much of the success of international law leans on the willingness of states to go along with it, and to incorporate international law into their own judicial systems. This understanding has always been fragile, and is under even greater threat now. Perhaps the threat is too great for international law to still matter?

This debate will follow a British Parliamentary format with eight debaters split into four teams of two.

Participants who wish to speak are highly encouraged to bring a paper and pen.

You are welcome to participate even if you have no prior debating experience.

We aim for debates that are respectful, constructive, and welcoming:

• Respect ideas and people Listen actively, stay quiet while others speak, and debate arguments, not identities or beliefs.
• Be concise and civil Keep questions short and relevant; avoid hostility, hate speech, or discrimination.
• Respect boundaries and time No unwanted advances or suggestive behavior; arrive on time to avoid disrupting the debate.
• Follow moderators They guide the discussion and ensure fairness.