Recently, international law, or more specifically, violation of international law, has been at the forefront of the media. For example, the U.S.- Israeli attacks on Iran have been criticized as a breach of UN Charter Article 2(4). The United Nations has “condemned” these actions, but nothing has actually been done. This has called into question the effectiveness of international law: why do these rules matter if countries are not actually obliged to follow them? What’s the point of international law? First, we need to establish there are two kinds of international law: binding and non-binding. So which one is more effective in ensuring state compliance? Binding law carries legal repercussions for violations, and non-binding law does not. At first glance, one would assume that binding law is more effective because there are repercussions for breaking it, which would encourage further compliance and cooperation. If a centralized coercive authority existed to punish states that violated international law, this would likely be true. However, there is no way to actually enforce binding international law in the same way that states enforce their own domestic laws. There is no central global authority, or put more simply, there is no official “world police” to punish violators of international law. Conversely, non-binding law is widely regarded as more effective than binding law because it does not require states to go through their domestic formal ratification processes. Since there is no coercive enforcement mechanism and all international law ultimately depends on voluntary compliance anyway, non-binding law is considered more effective because it is able to establish norms more quickly and broadly. This is especially important for countries where ratification of specific binding agreements is less likely, especially due to concerns regarding sovereignty. For example, the 1948 Human Rights Declaration was a non-binding agreement, but has served as the foundation for human rights norms in the modern day. Essentially, the “point” of international law is that it helps to establish “norms” for states to adhere to. Although international law cannot be enforced in the same way that domestic law would be, states are incentivized to follow international law because it represents a set of established global norms; such as collective security and sovereignty. Breaking these norms would damage a state’s credibility, hurting relations with other states. This is the reason international organizations are successful in sustaining cooperation: because they force states to repeatedly interact with each other, incentivizing “friendlier” behavior for fear that certain actions could cause them damage down the line. Furthermore, norms are entrenched by states and international organizations through a public calling out of violations, this is known as “naming and shaming.” This reputational pressure is the closest thing that international law has to an enforcement mechanism. However, it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations to the effectiveness of “naming and shaming.” Geopolitical affinity, or a state’s relationship to another state (positive or negative) is demonstrated to have an effect on which issues are brought to public attention (Terman and Byun 2021). Rival states are shown to criticize each other on more “sensitive” issues such as human rights abuses, while allied states will scrutinize “safer” problems such as socioeconomic inequality. Therefore, this form of enforcement through reputational pressure, though effective in some cases, is inconsistently applied because it is dependent on states’ political interests. Evidently, some states are more vulnerable to these reputational costs than others. Certain states are powerful and self-sufficient enough to not be dependent on the approval of other states. Also, some states have far more influence than others in setting these norms in the first place. For example, the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council– the U.S., France, the U.K., Russia, and China –possess exclusive veto power regarding proposed resolutions. Why do these countries have such a large amount of influence over international law? Powerful states will always have more influence than other states when it comes to establishing global standards, and this has been institutionalized in international organizations such as the UN. Similarly, in the aforementioned process of “naming and shaming,” the criticisms of larger, more powerful states are given more credibility compared to those from smaller, weaker nations. Ultimately, because there is no central international authority, the cooperation and support of powerful states is vital to the credibility of international law and organizations as a whole. Evidently, international law has limitations: it reflects the existing global hierarchy, lacks enforcement power, and reputational pressure is inconsistently effective. Because of these factors and how they have impacted current events, we might be tempted to write it off as pointless. However, it is important to recognize that international law is still instrumental in sustaining international cooperation by providing a set of norms for states to follow. Although conflict is not eliminated, by creating an international order where criticism is encouraged, it is less likely than in the absence of the forum for cooperation that is facilitated by international law. References: Terman, Rochelle, and Joshua Byun. “Punishment and Politicization in the International Human Rights Regime.” American Political Science Review, vol. 116, no. 2, Nov. 2021, pp. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421001167.
By Madeleine Harp
Yes, he could be outrageous. When a little girl fell into a well in Texas and the rescue of “Baby Jessica” unfolded live on TV, CNN’s ratings skyrocketed. Ted joked maybe CNN should place candy bars around other wells. Yet, you could also find him in war-torn regions poking sticks in the ground searching for land mines that children were stepping on, blowing themselves up. He was complicated. Until I met Ted, I thought Lyndon Johnson was the most complex person I had ever known. Before I accepted the job as CNN’s president, I told him, “Ted, before you hire me, you need to know that I battle depression.” He shot back, “Hell, pal, let me tell you about me.” That’s all he said. It was classic Ted: disarming, revealing, and removed, all at once. He was impatient with a restless energy that could make him difficult. If you were late for a meeting with him, it was almost a death sentence. I think the reason he hated delay was because he couldn’t wait to get to the future. Above all, Ted Turner was a visionary. When he founded CNN as a 24-hour news channel, the other networks only provided morning and evening news shows. They would break into regular programming only for major events. Ted saw the need for an around-the-clock news network. He envisioned CNN as a truly global channel that would provide honest, reliable, unbiased information to people around the world, especially in countries where independent news was suppressed. When I was considering accepting the job, I asked Ted what he would expect of the next president of CNN. He said, “I want us to make CNN the absolute best news network on the planet.” When I asked him, what are your policies about news. He said, “Be fair.” He wanted reporters to report, anchors to anchor, and neither to editorialize. He wanted news to be the star, not the personalities. My first day at CNN was August 1, 1990. The following day, Iraq’s Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I told Ted that if we were to be the premiere news source for a possible war between the U.S. and Iraq, it could cost as much as thirty million dollars over budget. His answer startled me: “You spend whatever you think it takes, pal.” With Ted’s total support, we established a special communications link, so that when all other networks lost their transmission capabilities from Baghdad all eyes turned to CNN. Over the eleven years I was with Ted, we covered so many other stories—the fall of the Soviet Union, the OJ Simpson trial, the Balkan Wars, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Waco siege, the death of Princess Diana. What would those years have been like without CNN? Ted told me that the most important thing he did in life was raising his five children. A close second was creating CNN. He was a man of many accomplishments. He won the America’s Cup, the renowned sailing race. He bought the Atlanta Braves and transformed them from one of baseball’s worst teams into one of its best. You could call those rich man’s toys, but Ted cared far more deeply about the planet. In 1998, he donated one billion dollars and created the United Nations Foundation to fund humanitarian causes such as helping refugees, fighting disease, and clearing landmines. He worked with former Senator Sam Nunn to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons with the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He was a passionate steward of the land. Over the years, he acquired and worked to restore two million acres, cleaning the streams, removing the cattle, and reintroducing bison, gray wolves, and native plants and grasses. His bison herd now numbers over 45,000 head. On those lands, you can see what the Native Americans saw when they roamed there. No mention of Ted’s life can ignore the love he had for Jane Fonda. They were remarkable together, sharing both passion and purpose in the common cause for peace. Ted was dashing and charismatic with the neatly trimmed mustache of a Hollywood leading man of yesterday. He was a swashbuckler whose bravado exuded the promise of daring, romantic adventures. Ted was a maverick like no one I have ever known. We will miss you, pal. Tom Johnson was the President of CNN and is the author of Driven: A Life in Public Service and Journalism from LBJ to CNN.
By Tom Johnson
The case against foreign aid has a reasonable premise: to the public, the money is difficult to track, and the outcomes are even more challenging to measure. In a country rife with political division and economic inequality, wherein the middle class is struggling to afford a comfortable life, taxpayers are rightfully skeptical of tens of billions of dollars going towards foreign projects. That money could be used here at home to fix roads, build affordable housing, and invest more in underfunded communities. Why invest abroad when we have so many issues right here in America? The short answer is America does not live on an island, and our international investments are a driving force of American prosperity today. Foreign aid, if done correctly, is America first. What Was USAID, & What Happened To It? The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was founded in 1961, which “served as the lead international humanitarian and development arm of the U.S. government” (Congressional Research Service, 2025). This agency was created under President John F. Kennedy to combat Soviet influence abroad during the Cold War, using strategic generosity to gain influence around the world. USAID was a pivotal tool to deliver humanitarian relief, fostering democratic institutions, and strengthening alliances that underpin U.S. global leadership. In 2024, USAID provided aid to approximately 130 countries, with a total appropriation of $35 billion for that fiscal year (approximately 0.7 percent of the federal budget). However, during the Trump Administration, the USAID has been largely gutted. As of July, 2025, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, announced that 83% USAID foreign assistance programs are cancelled, while remaining programs would be subsumed under the Department of State. The Trump Administration’s targeting of USAID comes from his view that U.S. foreign aid does not align with American interests and that money spent on it represents government waste. By targeting this agency, Trump is signalling to his supporters that he supports removing fiscal waste and that he is putting America first. But does the signal match reality, or is there a more nuanced picture? The Three Powers of American Power – Defense, Diplomacy, & Development. To understand USAID’s role, we must first understand how America maintains global power. The U.S. has a 3 D’s approach to international relations, consisting of the following: 1. Defense (Administered by the Department of Defense) 2. Diplomacy (Administered by the Department of State) 3. Development (Administered by the USAID) USAID primarily addresses this third prong of international engagement, but each prong is useful. Soldiers enforce American power under the Department of Defense, diplomats engage with allies and adversaries alike under the Department of State, and aid workers provide institutional support to developing countries under the USAID. Contrary to the views of critics, development is not based on random charity; the “aid” in USAID serves to buy America the goodwill it needs to establish better business relations, impart cultural influence, and stop deadly health epidemics from spreading and eventually affecting Americans. USAID is not really a humanitarian project, but rather an arm of American soft power. What does this mean in practice, however? USAID Is An Investment Device, Not A Charity. What critics miss about framing foreign aid as a “giveaway” is that when developing countries receive U.S. investments through the USAID, that money comes back to America in the form of new benefits. USAID Improved Trade Access With Developing Countries A 2013 report from the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that “an increase in aid for trade of 10 percent (or about USD 1 billion) would increase exports of developing countries by about USD 9 billion in recent years” (WTO, 2023, pg. 154). Thus, when America invests in building export infrastructure in Africa, for example, it leads to money coming back to us in the form of cheaper exports, and in some cases, a new market for American producers to sell to. We see this most distinctly with the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), where the USAID worked with other agencies to develop trade hubs in sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, U.S trade in goods with sub-Saharan Africa increased from $24 billion to $49.9 billion between 2001 and 2022. To break it down further, U.S. exports to the region increased from $6 billion to $18.5 billion, and U.S. imports increased from $17.9 billion to $31.4 billion in that 21-year period. Thus, through the USAID, the long-term benefit was that not only were American consumers able to access 1800 more goods at a cheaper rate, but American businesses also gained a new market in 40 African countries. USAID Was A Vital Resource For American Farmers As Gary Wertish, president of the Minnesota Farmers’ Union, put it regarding the USAID cuts, “It definitely does make a difference. Because we produce more within the state than we can consume. So, we do need to export, and this is another one of the markets that we’re able to export around the globe through the USAID program” (MPR, 2025). By gutting USAID so abruptly, the Trump Administration has weakened the access to global markets that farmers like Wertish rely on. And by doing this, farmers will have to find other ways to raise revenues, like raising prices, making it more expensive to feed American families. And vice versa, if USAID were still intact, farmers could use that to export more food, generate income, and afford to lower prices. USAID Weakened Terror Links In the Sahel region of Africa, USAID investments helped curb terrorist group recruitment by helping communities deal with climate hazards and food shortages. If you help feed vulnerable families in unstable regions, terrorist organizations like Boko Haram have less financial leverage to recruit new members. If young men are starving, with no support, and terrorists hand them guns while promising food and financial support, it’s not so easy to refuse if the alternative is starving to death. A world where civilians in these regions are supported, even minimally, can go a long way to reduce the leverage
By Vaibhav Sinha
Follow Us