A sharp contrast in foreign policy strategies highlights growing criticism over US selective international law enforcement on the global stage. In an opinion piece published by the South China Morning Post, columnist Alex Lo examines Washington’s dual approach to international institutions. Specifically, while the U.S. government actively moves to isolate and dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC), it simultaneously demands that international actors respect the Hague tribunal’s South China Sea arbitration ruling.
Selective Application of Multilateral Governance
This policy dichotomy underscores a broader debate concerning state sovereignty and adherence to treaty frameworks. On one hand, U.S. officials criticize foreign territorial claims by invoking the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Conversely, Washington rejects external judicial oversight when international courts attempt to examine domestic or allied military conduct.
“International law becomes a weapon to wield against geopolitical adversaries rather than a uniform standard for universal compliance,” noted diplomatic analysts.
Furthermore, critics argue that undermining global bodies weakens international institutions during periods of heightened geopolitical tension.
Geopolitical Friction and Multipolarity Risks
Additionally, this selective posture complicates efforts to build broad consensus across contested maritime corridors. When major powers selectively choose which legal rulings to support, smaller developing nations face increased instability.
Therefore, reliance on arbitrary unilateral enforcement risks accelerating the decline of structured international order. Ultimately, establishing a stable global equilibrium requires consistent adherence to legal norms across all sovereign states.
Lo, A. (2026, July 28). America declares international law for thee but not for me. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/opinion/world-opinion/article/3361944/america-declares-international-law-thee-not-me