Weaponized Law: Repositioning of Power in the Contemporary world

Abstract:

This article interrogates the strategic dealing with international legal frameworks by major powers to advance geopolitical interests, a phenomenon here termed "weaponized law." Drawing from Power Transition Theory, it explores how rising powers increasingly challenge the legitimacy of the Western-led rules-based order not only through military or economic means but through legal subversion, institutional circumvention, and normative contestation. The essay analyses the deployment of sanctions regimes, international criminal indictments, treaty withdrawals, and parallel legal institutions as instruments of power competition. Ultimately, it contends that the global legal order is fragmenting—not merely due to power shifts, but because law itself is becoming a contested domain of geopolitical rivalry.

Keywords: Strategic, Weaponized law, Power Transition Theory, Legal Subversion, International Institutions, global order.

Introduction

The liberal international order, forged in the aftermath of the Second World War, was underpinned not merely by military might or economic supremacy, but by the normative architecture of international law. From the United Nations Charter to the Bretton Woods institutions, law played a constitutive role in legitimising the hegemony of the West, particularly the United States. However, this once-cohesive legal regime is now under visible strain. Increasingly, legal mechanisms—sanctions, indictments, treaty interpretations, and institutional rules—are being appropriated not as impartial instruments of global governance but as tools of strategic leverage. This phenomenon, which this article terms weaponized law, reflects and accelerates a deeper systemic shift: the erosion of the rules-based international order amidst a multipolar transition.

Hegemony Inducing Law

International law has never existed in a political vacuum. Critical legal scholars have long argued that law often reflects the interests of dominant powers while maintaining the appearance of universality. Martti Koskenniemi asserts that international law oscillates between apology and utopia, functioning as a justificatory mechanism for power while cloaked in normative idealism. The post-war legal order institutionalised Western values: sovereignty was sacrosanct unless violated by liberal norms, and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) enforced structural hierarchies under the veneer of neutrality. The United States, through its dominance in these institutions, shaped the rules of trade, finance, and conflict resolution—turning law into a tool of control rather than a guarantor of equity.

Global order and relevance of Power Transition Theory

Power Transition Theory, first articulated by A.F.K. Organski, posits that global conflict becomes likely when a dissatisfied rising power approaches parity with an established hegemon. Traditionally applied to kinetic or economic domains, PTT offers a compelling lens to interpret contemporary legal contestation. Rising powers such as China and Russia are not only expanding their military and economic influence, but are also increasingly dissatisfied with the legal institutions that structure global governance.

Their response is twofold: (1)rejection of Western-dominated legal for a like China’s disregard for the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in Philippines v. China; and (2) Construction of parallel institutions, such as the New Development Bank and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

These legal and quasi-legal innovations are not merely economic—they are normative challenges to Western legal authority. Economic sanctions, particularly those imposed unilaterally by the United States and the European Union, have become emblematic of weaponized legality. These measures, while justified under domestic law or invoked under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, often bypass multilateral legitimacy. The U.S. Treasury’s use of the dollar-centric financial system (e.g., SWIFT restrictions) has drawn accusations of “lawfare” — legal war-making through financial coercion. Countries like Iran and Venezuela have labeled such sanctions not only as violations of sovereignty but as breaches of international humanitarian norms. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has long faced criticism for its Africa-heavy docket. The indictment of Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023 for war crimes in Ukraine was hailed by Western states but rejected by Global South countries as selective enforcement, especially given U.S. non-membership in the Rome Statute and past interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This asymmetry fuels scepticism toward international legal accountability mechanisms Weaponization is also evident in how states selectively engage with treaties. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) exemplify exit as a strategy of coercion. Simultaneously, China’s aggressive reinterpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) reflects a strategy of legal manipulation rather than outright rejection.

Law’s Uncertain Residence

The cumulative effect of these trends is not the death of international law, but its decentralisation and polarisation. The so-called rules-based international order appears less like a global consensus and more like a normative battleground. Law is no longer a neutral arbiter but a terrain of contestation — manipulated by those who write it, rejected by those excluded from it, and reimagined by those seeking alternatives. This disintegration also reflects a crisis of legitimacy. As Anne-Marie Slaughter argues, legitimacy in international law arises not just from consent but from fairness and participation. In a world where legal rules are selectively enforced and strategically interpreted, that legitimacy is vanishing.

Conclusion

The weaponization of law is both a symptom and a catalyst of global power shifts. As states increasingly wield legal instruments to secure geopolitical advantage, the promise of international law as a universal framework erodes. Power Transition Theory helps us see that this fragmentation is not accidental—it is structural. But unlike past transitions marked by war, today’s competition is fought through institutions, courts, treaties, and sanctions. Law is no longer the language of peace; it is the lexicon of rivalry. The challenge ahead is not only to reform legal institutions but to reimagine international law as a space for genuine pluralism, not hierarchical control.

References:

• Anghie, Antony. Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Cox, Robert. Multilateralism and the Law of the Sea. 51 International Organization 723 (1987).
• de Wet, Erika. The Role of Sanctions in Enforcing International Law. 32 Leiden Journal of International Law 1 (2019).
• Dugard, John. Dealing with the Double Standards of International Justice. Just Security, Jan. 15, 2023, (https://www.justsecurity.org)
• International Criminal Court. Warrant of Arrest for Vladimir Putin. Mar. 17, 2023, ( https://www.icc-cpi.int/news )
• Koskenniemi, Martti. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Kraska, James. China’s Approach to UNCLOS and the South China Sea. 45 Ocean Development and International Law 1 (2019).
• Marks, Susan. Empire’s Law. 10 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 403 (2006).
• Mamdani, Mahmood. The ICC’s Selective Justice. The Nation, Apr. 20, 2010, ( https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/icc%E2%80%99s-selective-justice/ )
• Organski, A.F.K. World Politics. Knopf, 1958.
• Shambaugh, David. China’s Quest for Global Power. 19 Asian Security 243 (2013).
• Slaughter, Anne-Marie. International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda. 87 American Journal of International Law 205 (1993).
• UN General Assembly. Unilateral Coercive Measures and Human Rights, A/HRC/42/46 (2019).
• Zarate, Juan. Treasury’s War: The Unleashing of a New Era of Financial Warfare. PublicAffairs, 2013.