International law functions primarily as a flexible tool of statecraft rather than an absolute rulebook, according to analysis from former Singaporean Bilahari Kausikan. Speaking on geopolitical realities and foreign policy literacy, Kausikan noted that sovereign states choose to comply with international agreements only when it aligns with their national interests, frequently treating legal frameworks as a vocabulary to justify actions decided upon other grounds.
The Reality of State Sovereignty and the Jungle World
According to Kausikan, international relations remain defined by relationships between sovereign states acting as the ultimate authority, creating a practical “jungle world.” Citing the insights of Singapore’s first foreign minister, S. Rajaratnam, Kausikan explained that every country maintains two distinct foreign policies: a theology of words standing for noble ideals, and practical diplomacy governed by the contingencies of survival. In this environment, international law sits uneasily between these two approaches, shifting constantly based on utility.
States routinely choose to comply with international law because doing so serves their interests, not because law operates as an autonomous reality. As Kausikan observed, interest rather than law forms the core organizing concept of global politics. Consequently, compliance remains entirely contingent on circumstances, and no pragmatically governed state commits to following every international law under every condition.
Fallacies of the Rules-Based Order and Western Miscalculations
Misunderstandings of this dynamic have repeatedly misled Western policymakers, according to Kausikan. He criticized former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s 2014 characterization of Russia’s annexation of Crimea as 19th-century behavior in the 21st century.
Kausikan noted that Carney’s proposal overlooked the foundational requirement of stability, which depends on deterrence and a balance of power that middle powers alone cannot provide against heavyweights like Russia and China.
Did you know? S.
Power, Deterrence, and Singapore’s Strategic Calculations
To guard against instability, Singapore has invested heavily in a technologically advanced military.
Kausikan noted that while Singapore took a strong diplomatic stance against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the nation contributed military assets to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq based on its national interests. Ultimately, the post-Cold War unipolar era represented an exception in world history rather than the norm, with current global conflicts reflecting a reversion to historical patterns of state competition.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why do states comply with international law?
According to Bilahari Kausikan, states choose to comply with international law because it serves their national interests in specific circumstances, rather than obeying an autonomous global rule of law.
What did S. Rajaratnam mean by two foreign policies?
Singapore’s first foreign minister argued that nations maintain a foreign policy of words for noble ideals and a foreign policy of practical diplomacy for survival in a competitive international system.
How does Singapore approach national security beyond international law?
While supporting international organizations, Singapore maintains a strong, technologically advanced military to ensure stability and protect its sovereignty when legal frameworks fail to deter threats.
To explore more geopolitical analyses and stay updated on international relations perspectives, subscribe to our newsletter and join the discussion in the comments below.
Worth a look