The Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan wrote over the weekend that big parts of international law are now being referred to in the past tense, even by their defenders like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The might is right approach is openly endorsed by the current White House and implicitly by the Kremlin. Some mainstream political parties in Europe, including Britain, and others approaching the mainstream are close to accepting this or even supporting it. Does this matter? And is it reversible?

In the past, there were infractions of the international law framework. The greater powers often wrapped themselves in a good deal of hypocrisy in doing so. But even the lip service had a function. Too obvious gaps between what countries said they were doing, and why, and what they were clearly doing caused unwelcome embarrassment in the UN and wider world and, for democracies, awkward accountability at home.

Past wars generally had cover of some kind. The Korean War was not only backed by the UN but fought in its name, thanks to a convenient temporary boycott of the UN Security Council by the USSR for other reasons.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth arrives to deliver Congressional briefings on Iran at the Capitol on March 3, 2026 in Washington, DC (Image: Getty Images)

The 2003 Iraq invasion had, or at least claimed, a degree of Security Council cover: Resolution 1441, unanimously passed, said that Iraq would face ‘serious consequences’ if it continued to violate Resolutions. (Tony Blair and others tried unsuccessfully to get a second, more specific Resolution). But the getting of UN backing, or not, was central to the pre-war activity. And while the invasion’s legality will be discussed for ever, the occupation was ‘legal’ almost from the start. Resolution 1483 established occupation structures within weeks; followed by Resolution 1511, inviting all member states to send troops to the Multi-National Force. I remember taking part in the negotiations for the annual renewals of these provisions.

Mr Putin’s invasions of Ukraine never went near trying for UN endorsement. It breached one of the few absolute bars supported by global consensus since 1945: changing borders by force. The second Trump administration has not only accepted that most of Russia’s land seizures should be recognized, and maybe some extra bits, but also accepted the idea of Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank. (The US Ambassador to Israel has suggested all of it).

The world has not been active against the West Bank settlements, but at least the successive UN Resolutions confirming the lines and limits of Israel’s national territory have been formally recognised up till now China’s behaviour in this is relatively legal. Its own big threat, an invasion of Taiwan, is different. Virtually all countries accept that there is only one China. Most countries like the status quo: Taiwan’s legal existence is somewhat vague, but we support its democratic stability and liberties – and value its trade. But while we might oppose its forcible takeover, we couldn’t argue that it was redrawing borders or annexing another country.

The best-known previous attempt at this, Iraq’s takeover of Kuwait, was reversed by a broad UN-backed coalition. The value of rules preventing forcible land seizures and militarily extorted trade deals is obvious to the smaller powers who won’t usually be doing the deeds. But it is also, in the longer term, in the interests of the great powers too. The post-1945 world largely avoided big wars. This stability let even the big powers get on with promoting their interests and, above all, their trade and wealth.

Nonetheless, as Professor Macmillan has argued, there seems to be acceptance that the past structures have gone forever. Is this really true?

Broken propeller sums up sorry saga of over-budget and delayed Calmac ferries

Check your attitude to pigeons. They are not the problem, you are

Mum’s the word when it comes to Celtic, Catholicism and the SNP

God bless America - let's make it Scotland's greatest friend

Historians have long argued about whether history is made by individual leaders or wider forces. I don’t know the answer. But allow a brief fantasy. The US Democrats seem increasingly likely to win the money-voting House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate, in November. Mr Trump, though remarkably robust for a man in his 80th year, might succumb to nature and leave office (though I accept there is little sign of this now). Any nominee for the vacant Vice Presidency would have to be approved by both Congressional Houses, so would likely be a far less partisan figure than the present Vice-President. And were something to happen to Mr – by then President - Vance before a new Vice-President’s appointment, the Presidency would pass to the by then Democratic Speaker of the House.

All this is far-fetched. But, as a thought game, it is interesting to see how a less MAGA president next year could change things. If he or she enforced the rule of international law, even only in the basic area of changing borders by force, there could be a dramatic calming of world affairs – to American benefit.

First, a new President could make clear that Russia cannot end up with Ukrainian territory; backing this with firm sanctions and absolute clarity that the US would re-join European partners in providing Ukraine with practical support. He (she?) could strengthen this by clearly telling China and India that as a Security Council member and an aspirant one, they needed to play their part in getting these rules re-engaged, Russia would very probably have to look rapidly for ways out.

Second, s/he could tell Israel that the same rule applies to them. Israel’s security would remain a core US interest – but occupying other people’s land as recognised by the international community does not help Israel’s long-term security. It also undermines Israel’s establishment as a democratic state. Aid could be provided to re-settle West Bank settlers but they couldn’t stay unilaterally in the territory of a future Palestinian state outside Israel’s borders.

This is potentially less improbable that it might seem. Mr Netanyahu’s conduct under Mr Trump’s blanket support has alienated a large proportion of Democrats and a growing number of Republicans, breaking the unquestioning US support that has underlain Israeli policy for decades. These two initiatives would ease tensions both immediately and recreate longer-term reassurances. All this is a reminder of how powerful the US still is in affecting the world. It also suggests that the historians who argue for the influence of at least some individuals on history may be right.

George Fergusson is a former British diplomat. He was the British High Commissioner to New Zealand and Samoa, and the Governor of the Pitcairn Islands, from 2006 to 2010. He was the Governor of Bermuda from 2012 to 2016

© Herald Scotland