By Andreas Belegris

There are people who speak about international law as if it were a distant, technical, almost bureaucratic field. And there are those who carry it as lived experience, an academic discipline, a diplomatic path and a political responsibility. Andreas Mavroyiannis belongs to the second category.

An honorary ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus, a diplomat with a long career at the United Nations and on the Cyprus issue, he has been elected president of the 77th Session of the UN International Law Commission. He was elected as a member of the Commission for a five-year term (2023–2027) to one of the most important bodies of the post-war international system. This UN institution works on the codification and progressive development of international law, that is, on the rules that should govern international relations and restrain the world from resorting to the threat or use of force and coercion.

Rules under… pressure

A conversation with him would be of interest at any time. Today, however, it feels almost necessary. Donald Trump challenges multilateralism, international organisations and the very logic of binding rules. Ukraine, Gaza and the Middle East remind us daily that international law is not a politically neutral university lecture, but a field of conflict. Some invoke it, some violate it, some fear it and some consider it a luxury. Mavroyiannis, however, insists that without it, only the law of the strong remains.

“The 77th session means that this Commission has existed for 77 years,” he says at the start of our discussion. “It is one of the most important committees of the United Nations. It is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and, under Article 13 of the Charter, is entrusted with the codification and progressive development of international law.”

Mavroyiannis describes reality without downplaying its difficulties: “Yes, multilateral diplomacy and international law are under siege and subject to constant attacks, but we must never assume that those who violate and attack can determine what the law is.”

His next sentence forms the core of the discussion: “International law and multilateral diplomacy centred on the United Nations are the only factors that can mitigate the dominance of power politics. There is nothing else. Otherwise we return to the law of the jungle.”

What, then, does international law mean today? Mavroyiannis rejects the cynical view that it is simply a tool for legitimising the powerful. But he does not embellish reality either. “Both are true,” he says. “But in essence, international law is a system of binding legal rules.” The problem, in his view, lies not in their existence, but in their implementation.

“The major problem with international law is that it is primarily created by states. States decide what international law will be through long-term processes. The authors and the subjects of the rules are the same, and the system is based on consent. But where international law faces problems is that, apart from a few exceptions, it lacks enforcement mechanisms, while for various reasons and depending on their interests, some states try to avoid complying with their obligations. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the binding nature of the rules.”

Selective use of rules, he stresses, does not undermine their universality.

Trump ignores the international legal order

Here lies the key contradiction of international life: rules exist, but their enforcement is not guaranteed.

“Even if you manage to bring a dispute before the International Court of Justice or other bodies that issue binding decisions, the implementation of those decisions cannot be enforced through specific mechanisms, as in domestic law. There are pressure measures, if and when the Security Council can act. But it does not function in the same automatic way as domestic systems.”

I ask whether we are witnessing a new crisis of international law or simply seeing more clearly the old argument, dating back to Thrasymachus, that law operates within power relations. His answer connects this entire discussion to the era of Trump:

“What exists today, after more than 80 years of the United Nations, around which the international legal order has revolved since the end of the Second World War, is a crisis of multilateralism. This crisis lies in the fact that some major powers believe they can act simply because they can. For example, President Trump’s approach is: if you can do it, do it. This is completely incompatible with the concept of international law and multilateralism.”

So who should fear international law? “All those who violate it should fear it,” he replies.

This is because international law increasingly includes elements of personal accountability: “It now also includes individual responsibility and criminal liability, as we see with the International Criminal Court.”

But fear is not limited to individuals. States, too, are affected. “Countries that violate international law or fail to comply with its basic rules should also be concerned,” he says. “It does not necessarily mean enforcement measures will follow. That is much more difficult. But, for example, a country like Turkey, which does not recognise the Law of the Sea Convention or even customary maritime law, should be very concerned about any international mechanism or decision relating to the law of the sea, because its position is outside international law.”

What do you say to a sceptical citizen?

What would he say to someone who sees wars in Ukraine, Gaza or Iran and thinks the rules do not apply equally?

Mavroyiannis neither asks for naivety nor encourages cynicism.

“The rules apply to everyone, but we have clear violations. What do you do when there are violations? Do you abolish the rules? Or do you do everything possible to enforce them?”

In his view, international law does not eliminate power relations, but it restrains them. “It manages, to some extent and under certain conditions, to mitigate power relations. It does not abolish them. We should aim gradually to restore a minimum level of order.”

‘Cyprus guides me’

At this point, Cyprus enters the discussion, both as a historical example and a personal experience.

“In Cyprus, we still rightly insist that we are victims of the Turkish invasion and occupation. Faced with such a clear violation of international law, what do we do? Say we should do nothing? We must persist in seeking restoration of legality.”

This experience has shaped his career. “It certainly influences me and makes me more determined to defend these rules,” he says. “The experience of Cyprus is the main reason I have been guided in my career towards the protection and respect of international law.”

At the same time, he acknowledges double standards: “We must not accept double standards. The international community intervened in Kuwait in 1990, but did nothing in Cyprus. That is the reality.”

Concern, but also determination

Towards the end, I ask whether he feels more optimistic or more worried.

“I am worried,” he replies immediately. “But that concern also makes me more determined.”

For him, the answer is not resignation but persistence. “The challenge is enormous, but it should strengthen our will to protect international law and restore it so it can meet today’s needs.”

The Trump administration has created obstacles. “Trump decided to withdraw from more than 60 organisations, including the International Law Commission,” he says. The impact is tangible: “In 2025, the Commission could not hold a full session. Normally we meet for 11 or 12 weeks—we managed only five due to lack of funds.”

The final answer

At the end, I ask what he would say to a young person who sees war, impunity and violence and believes international law is just an ideal.

His answer is simple:

“International law is the extension of the rule of law within a state. For the world to function in harmony, cooperation and collaboration, and for civilisation to flourish, it must follow basic common rules. This is the necessary foundation for international relations, prosperity, progress and human civilisation—to have a true international society.”

This article was first published by: popaganda.gr

International Law #