Is international law progressive, reactionary or neutral? Before answering, one needs a Marxist understanding of law. Marx claimed that “the totality of [society’s] relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure.”[1] Following the October Socialist Revolution, the RSFSR adopted the following definition: “Law is a system (or order) of social relationships which corresponds to the interests of the dominant class and is safeguarded by the organised force of that class.”[2] The reality of the class nature of law in bourgeois society is hidden by the claim of the equality of all citizens. This is the contradiction at the heart of bourgeois law.
Despite its class nature, law can provide an arena of struggle, and communists can engage with the system either to defend the movement, expose class injustice, or protect gains won through mass action. This position is fundamentally different from the social-democratic approach, which sees the courts as a neutral arbiter that can be used to incrementally reform capitalism from within. Our ultimate goal is to replace the entire bourgeois legal and state system with a socialist one.
If national law reflects the interests of the dominant class in society, does it follow that international law, based on the UN Charter, reflects the interests of the hegemonic world power? And if so, does international law offer a terrain for class struggle? A Marxist understanding of international law is based on Lenin’s theory of imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism. In 1935, the Soviet legal theorist Pashukanis stated that the real historical content of international law is the struggle between capitalist states. He stated that the emergence of the USSR meant that international law assumed a different form—that of a temporary truce between two antagonistic class systems.[3] The interests of US state monopoly capitalism have always dominated the UN, but the universality of the rights contained in the UN Charter, plus the strength of the USSR, forced the US to negotiate rather than dictate (though not always). Following the overthrow of European socialism, the position of US imperialism strengthened as the unipolar hegemon. As the KKE correctly stated at its recent Congress, the overthrow of the USSR has had a negative effect on the UN.[4] However, the contradiction between its form and content still exists, with the principle of sovereign equality remaining central to the UN Charter. This remains the primary legal shield of smaller, weaker states against imperialist aggression and, as such, has long been problematic for US imperialism, which is increasingly unwilling to accept the legal constraints imposed by UN membership. At the recent Munich “Security” Conference, US Secretary of State Rubio declared that the US would not allow international law to stand in the way of US imperialism’s “right” to world domination.[5]
The US solution has been the “Rules-Based International Order.” Unlike international law, which consists of treaties, customary law, and general principles identifiable through formal sources, the “rules” are undefined, unwritten, and shifting. Its ambiguity is its strength as an ideological tool. It conflates the interests of the NATO/EU bloc with the interests of “the international community.”
International law is not progressive nor neutral; it is a core element of global capitalism and imperialism. It is an active force that shapes, enables, and legitimises the exploitation of labour and resources on a world scale. This does not mean, however, that engagement with international law is futile. Opposition to the genocide in Palestine, the embargo on Cuba, and the kidnapping of Venezuela’s President Maduro can be mobilised around the universalism of the UN Charter. Anti-imperialist states and social movements must engage with international law, using legal arguments to expose hypocrisy, build solidarity, and protect policy space. The universalist language of the Charter provides tools for struggling against colonialism and imperialist domination.
Reforming international law is necessary but insufficient. We must engage with international law to resist imperialism and protect popular gains; and further, we must mobilise to overthrow the capitalist system that produces imperialist law. The goal is not a more just international law within capitalism, but the abolition of the class relations that make law, in its current form, necessary.
