From romance to horror: International norms, season 2

Lee Jae-min

The author is a professor of law at the Seoul National University’s School of Law. 

Anyone who learns that I teach international law now asks me the same questions: "What happens next?" "Where is international law?" 

With the international order under strain, the questions are understandable. Conflicts are multiplying, geopolitical rivalry is deepening and institutions expected to uphold global rules appear increasingly constrained. The United Nations, for example, often seems more preoccupied with financial difficulties than with resolving the world's gravest crises.

It is tempting to conclude that international norms have failed. Countries such as Korea, which have long benefited from and faithfully followed rules-based cooperation, naturally feel disappointed. Yet that conclusion overlooks an important reality. The most visible violations attract headlines, while the vast majority of international law continues to operate quietly in the background.

The situation is much like international air travel. Tens of thousands of flights carry millions of passengers across the world every day. Most arrive safely and on time, attracting little attention. Only accidents become news. International law suffers from a similar perception gap. High-profile violations dominate public discussion, creating the impression that the entire system has broken down.

In practice, legal rules still govern much of international life. They provide the framework for investment disputes, diplomatic protection, visa arrangements, cross-border commerce and negotiations over maritime boundaries. They also underpin cooperation on supply chains and determine which country's laws apply to cross-border business activities. Such mechanisms rarely receive public attention precisely because they function as intended.

Global trade offers another example. Despite rising tariffs and growing protectionism, most international commerce continues under established rules. Although political tensions have intensified, governments and businesses still depend on legal commitments to facilitate trade, investment and transportation. The international system may be under pressure, but it has not ceased to function.

The same principle applies to diplomacy. Individuals rely on written contracts even for routine transactions such as renting a home. Relations between states are no different. Even after armed conflict, governments eventually return to negotiation tables and formal agreements. Cease-fire accords and peace treaties remain legal instruments that provide a framework for ending violence. The legal order therefore resembles an iceberg. Public attention focuses on the visible crises above the surface, while the larger, less visible structure continues to support international relations.

Recognizing this hidden dimension is essential. One pillar of the postwar international order has undoubtedly weakened, but it would be premature to describe today's world as a lawless jungle where rules no longer matter.

A more significant change lies elsewhere. International law is increasingly being used as a strategic instrument rather than simply as a shared set of principles. This phenomenon, commonly described as "lawfare," involves employing legal rules to advance national objectives. Governments invoke international norms to strengthen diplomatic positions, shape economic competition and influence geopolitical outcomes. In some cases, the practice extends to selective interpretation or even misuse of legal principles.

This trend is particularly visible in emerging fields. Countries are competing to shape rules governing semiconductors, AI, supply chains, the Arctic and outer space. Establishing standards in these sectors is no longer a purely legal exercise but a means of securing strategic advantages. Whether one approves or not, legal rules are increasingly becoming instruments of national power.

For years, Korea has championed a rules-based international order. Today, however, that vision is giving way to one in which states compete through the use of rules themselves. The vocabulary remains the same, but the logic has changed. If the earlier era resembled a romance built on cooperation, the emerging one is closer to a horror story driven by rivalry. The cast is the same, but the plot has now changed greatly.

Korea cannot remain a passive observer. The question is whether it will help shape the rules or simply respond to those written by others. Ironically, the growing instrumentalization of international law has increased demand for legal expertise. Governments and universities are expanding research and training because they recognize its strategic value.

Korea has yet to embrace this perspective fully. International law is still often viewed as an idealistic statement of values rather than a practical policy tool. A more realistic approach is needed. Responding to other countries' legal strategies does not mean abandoning principles. It means building the capacity to defend national interests within existing legal frameworks. Even a shield requires careful preparation.

The international environment will remain turbulent. Yet assuming rules no longer matter would be a serious mistake. International norms deserve criticism when they fail, but they also deserve sustained investment because they continue to shape global affairs. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney observed at the Davos Forum in January, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." In today's world, the seating chart is largely determined by international norms. Understanding and helping shape those rules may prove more important than ever.