By Denko Maleski
“I don’t need international law,” said U.S. President Donald Trump. The pressing journalistic question then becomes: where is the limit to the abuse of American power? Trump’s answer is stark: “My own morality.” For Macedonian politicians, this is a warning: our most important strategic partner, the United States, is taking from our hands the one tool for any meaningful self-defense—international law.
I have been debating the relationship between law and politics for three decades—not because I oppose the global legal order, but because politicians’ “normative lenses” distort the view of realpolitik, a distortion that can lead a state to ruin. When I introduced Thucydides and the school of modern realism into domestic academic and political discourse years ago, I earned a reputation as an opponent of international law. In fact, the opposite is true.
I simply wish to emphasize that state policy cannot be guided solely by law. International law is an essential corrective in the anarchic structure of the international system, where states act in their own interests, backed by power. In this anarchic system, where no global government exists, international law only blunts the edges of potential conflicts. Unlike domestic law, which is hierarchical and enforceable, international law is fundamentally a law of coordination.
As individuals, we submit to the law because otherwise we face imprisonment. As states, we accept international law to preserve order and predictability. If there is any merit in Trump’s dismissal of international law, it lies in exposing the hypocrisy of the normative world and revealing the naked truth of international politics: power politics reigns supreme.
Today’s world can only be understood through this lens. International relations are shaped by anarchy, national interests, and power, filtered through the behavior of leaders. The global balance is shifting: the unipolar world dominated by the United States is giving way to a tripolar order, with America, China, and Russia as centers of power. And as in any competition over scarce but valuable resources—territory, influence, wealth—grabbing dominates.
Trump’s disregard for international law is therefore not just convenient—it is functional. Stripped of its unchallenged global dominance, the U.S., under Trump, lashes out militarily, much like an individual cornered and fighting to survive. My thoughts return to Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, written nearly 2,500 years ago. Read closely, and one sees that his observations were not moment-specific—they are timeless lessons in international politics.
Thucydides argued that the unchanging character of human nature allows us to speak of the historical continuity of politics. Human behavior—both private and political—is driven by three motives: the pursuit of security, honor, and profit. These forces explain past events, shape the present, and allow predictions. Security, honor, and profit motivate behavior, but because all actors seek the same, they inevitably compete for power.
Power produces dominance: the strong do what they can, the weak do what they must. War, the most extreme form of competition, arises from this struggle among states, which are aggregates of individuals. States seek the same things as individuals: security, honor, and profit.
A country’s foreign policy reflects the clash of competing factions within it, each interpreting the public interest through the lens of private ambition. The causes of war cannot be reduced solely to aggressive human instincts; the structure of the international system also matters. The anarchic order, governed by the principle of self-help, makes states suspicious of one another’s military capabilities. States seek to balance the power of rivals, often forming alliances to secure survival or dominance. Those that fail to follow this “iron law” of international politics are eliminated.
Moral standards in international relations play a secondary role. The anarchic system prioritizes power over morality. States often have no choice but to ensure their own survival, as no one else will do it for them. Faced with the choice between security obtained by immoral means and collapse through adherence to moral principles, they choose the former. The logic of state behavior mirrors moral dilemmas faced by individuals: the necessities of survival can force difficult choices, akin to a parent saving one child while unable to save another.
Only by understanding the realities of international politics, as Thucydides taught, can we truly appreciate why the ideals of international law and the United Nations are so precious today.