Let me offer a rule that peacemakers have long understood. “Peace through strength” is an oxymoron. Soft power directed towards maintaining and expanding an empire inevitably becomes hard power. — Trump’s Triumphal Arch, Richard Rubenstein, CounterPunch, 27 May 2026

The ongoing tensions over the Strait of Hormuz once again expose the fragility of what powerful states describe as the “rules-based international order”. This narrow maritime corridor carries nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade.

The mere possibility of disruption in navigation through it immediately sends tremors across global markets, energy supplies, currencies, and political alliances. Suddenly, international law, freedom of navigation, and the sanctity of trade routes become sacred principles demanding collective enforcement.

What appears less discussed is a more fundamental question: are modern laws genuinely rooted in universal principles of justice, or are they ultimately shaped by prevailing power structures?

This question lies at the heart of both domestic and international jurisprudence. Every civilisation has struggled with the same dilemma. Does law derive legitimacy merely because it is enacted by authority, or does authority itself remain subordinate to higher moral principles? The answer determines whether constitutions become instruments of justice or sophisticated mechanisms of domination.

Modern nation-states formally claim allegiance to liberty, equality, human dignity, and the rule of law. International institutions speak the language of peace, cooperation, and collective security. The actual conduct of states often reveals a different reality. International law becomes rigid when the interests of dominant powers are threatened and flexible when those very powers violate the same principles elsewhere.

Aggression is condemned selectively. Occupations are judged differently according to geography and alliances. Economic coercion against weaker societies is legitimised in the name of sanctions or strategic necessity.

The contradiction is neither accidental nor new. Human history repeatedly demonstrates that law detached from moral foundations gradually becomes an extension of power.

Courts have often legitimised extraordinary concentrations of power in the name of stability and national interest

Courts have often legitimised extraordinary concentrations of power in the name of stability and national interest

The Strait of Hormuz illustrates this contradiction vividly. Freedom of navigation is defended as an inviolable principle because the global economy depends upon it. The same consistency disappears when weaker nations face blockades, occupations, externally imposed regime changes, or economic structures that permanently subordinate their sovereignty to global financial interests. In such cases, legality often bends before strategic calculations.

This selective application of principles has produced deep mistrust in........

© The Friday Times