The Shifting Sands of Global Order: Is the Monroe Doctrine a Harbinger of a New Era?
The recent resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine, coupled with growing skepticism towards international law, isn’t simply a regional issue. It’s a symptom of a deeper crisis in the Liberal International Order – the post-World War II system built on institutions like the UN and OAS. The question isn’t whether this order is changing, but how it’s changing, and what role doctrines like the Monroe Doctrine will play in the new landscape.
From Anti-Colonialism to Assertive Hegemony: A Historical Paradox
Historically, the Monroe Doctrine, initially proclaimed in 1823, presented itself as an anti-colonial stance, warning European powers against further intervention in the Americas. However, as historian William Appleman Williams pointed out, it simultaneously asserted US dominance, positioning the US as the guardian of the continent. This inherent tension – a claim of protecting sovereignty while simultaneously asserting control – has been a constant throughout the doctrine’s history.
The 20th century saw this tension escalate. President Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 explicitly justified US intervention in Latin American countries deemed unstable, framing it as a necessary measure to maintain order. This “international police power,” as Roosevelt termed it, laid the groundwork for decades of US involvement in the region, often with detrimental consequences for local sovereignty.
Trump’s “MAGA Monroe Doctrine” and the Crisis of International Law
The Trump administration’s explicit invocation of the Monroe Doctrine, dubbed the “MAGA Monroe Doctrine” by some, represents a significant shift. It’s not merely a return to historical interventionism, but a rejection of the post-1945 consensus that prioritized multilateralism and international law. As analysts like Julian Arato and Justina Uriburu have argued, the intervention in Venezuela under this framework was arguably illegal under international law.
This isn’t to say international law is collapsing entirely. Rather, it’s being selectively applied – or ignored – by powerful nations when it conflicts with their perceived national interests. The current geopolitical climate, marked by rising tensions between the US, China, and Russia, exacerbates this trend. The US views China’s growing economic influence in Latin America as a challenge to its hegemony, and the Monroe Doctrine is being repurposed as a tool to counter this influence.
Latin America’s Response: From Condemnation to Constructive Engagement?
Historically, Latin American jurists have had a complex relationship with the Monroe Doctrine. Figures like Alejandro Álvarez in the early 20th century argued for a distinct “American international law” rooted in republicanism and non-intervention, contrasting it with European traditions. Others, like Isidro Fabela, vehemently condemned the doctrine as inherently interventionist.
This debate culminated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, a landmark achievement of Latin American international law that enshrined principles of non-intervention and sovereign equality. However, the US often disregarded these principles in practice. Today, Latin American nations face a dilemma: outright condemnation of the Monroe Doctrine risks further marginalization, while passive acceptance legitimizes a potentially destabilizing policy.
A more pragmatic approach might involve leveraging the current situation to strengthen regional institutions and advocate for a more equitable international order. The 1948 Bogotá Conference, which produced the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, offers a historical precedent for regional cooperation in promoting human rights and democratic values.
The Erosion of Minimal Standards and the Future of International Order
The core issue isn’t simply the revival of the Monroe Doctrine, but the broader erosion of minimal standards in international law. As Ingrid Brunk and Monica Hakimi have demonstrated, the prohibition of annexation and intervention – foundational principles of the post-WWII order – are increasingly being challenged by powerful nations. The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, alongside the US intervention in Venezuela, highlight this dangerous trend.
Nikolas Rajkovic argues that international law is increasingly becoming an instrument of “elastic legality,” serving the interests of powerful states rather than upholding universal principles. This shift from a substantive, pluralist system to an arbitrary, monistic one poses a significant threat to global stability.
Navigating the New Anarchy: A Path Forward
The Liberal International Order, as it existed since 1945, is undeniably in crisis. Nostalgia for a bygone era is unproductive. The challenge lies in rebuilding a system that can address the complexities of the 21st century. This requires a renewed commitment to multilateralism, a strengthening of international institutions, and a willingness to challenge the unilateral actions of powerful nations.
For Latin America, this means pursuing a strategy of constructive engagement, advocating for a more equitable international order, and leveraging regional institutions to promote its interests. It also means recognizing that the past – the debates over the Monroe Doctrine, the achievements of the Montevideo Convention and the Bogotá Conference – holds valuable lessons for navigating the present and shaping the future.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- What is the Monroe Doctrine? A US foreign policy principle opposing European colonialism in the Americas, initially proclaimed in 1823.
- Is the Monroe Doctrine still relevant today? Yes, it has been recently invoked by the US government, raising concerns about its implications for international law and regional stability.
- What is the “MAGA Monroe Doctrine”? A term used to describe the Trump administration’s assertive reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, emphasizing US dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
- What is the Montevideo Convention? A landmark 1933 treaty that established key principles of international law in Latin America, including non-intervention and sovereign equality.
- Is international law failing? Not entirely, but it is facing significant challenges, including selective application and disregard by powerful nations.
Want to learn more? Explore our articles on US Foreign Policy and International Law for deeper insights into these complex issues. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated on the latest developments in global affairs.
