American Hegemony and the Paradox of International Law
Questioning US Stance on Arbitral Tribunals vs. ICC and UNCLOS
Quick Look
The US supports arbitral tribunals like the one invalidating China's South China Sea claims under UNCLOS but rejects the ICC, highlighting a paradox in its approach to international law.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The US has historically been selective in its engagement with international legal bodies.
In Orwellian totalitarianism, two plus two can equal five. But with American hegemony, things can be A and not A at the same time. Here’s the question: when they rule against states, don’t arbitral tribunals at The Hague pose as much of a challenge to their sovereignty as the ICC or any international court? The US is not a party to the ICC or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) on which the South China Sea arbitration was based. That tribunal was set up under Annex VII of Unclos. The Permanent Court of Arbitration served as the case’s registry. The arbitration invalidated most of Beijing’s maritime claims, then referred to as the nine-dash line. So why support one set of international laws but declare war on another?
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Increased tensions between the US and China over South China Sea claims.
Likely · Within months
Open Questions
- What are the long-term implications for international law?
- How will China respond to future arbitral rulings?
