China Beyond the Wall interviewed Professor Robert Charvin on a wide range of international political issues, including the way Western media portray international law; the Western powers’ resort to force, particularly against Russia and Iran; the room for maneuver available to Washington’s allies and geopolitical adversaries; China’s ability to recalibrate international law; and the options available to small and medium-sized powers in the face of hegemonic powers. The full interview is published below.

The Media and International Law

Lama El Horr – Western media have systematically drawn a parallel between Ukraine and Gaza—blatant hypocrisy, when one considers the thousands of sanctions imposed on Russia, in contrast to the preferential treatment afforded to Israel; or when one considers the unlimited military and diplomatic support enjoyed by Ukraine, in contrast to the macabre indifference shown toward the genocide of the Palestinians. This cognitive war—which obviously does not stop there—illustrates the crucial role played by the media in shaping our perception of the world, since it is the media that decide whether your cause is just or unjust, legitimate or illegitimate. In short, it is the media that draw the boundaries of international law.

Is it absurd to argue that Western media propaganda, acting as an auxiliary to brute force, embodies a form of “dynamic” law that, in practice, is superimposed on “tangible” international law?

Robert Charvin – Law is power. For the Western world, the norms developed by European states from the seventeenth century onward constitute the international law that stabilizes their power: conceived and implemented by the dominant powers, these legal norms, supposedly derived from a “natural” order, primarily serve their commercial interests. However, they also objectively serve to set limits on those powers: one of the virtues of law is that it can also constitute a countervailing force that benefits the weakest. In the absence of such barriers, international relations are based solely on violence and relations of power.

With the centuries-long hegemony of the Western powers, international law became universal despite the opposition of numerous peoples around the world, but without escaping one fundamental condition: colonized peoples, generally subjugated through violence by the states most advanced in the legal sphere, were denied the benefit of being subject to that law. The rules imposed on enslaved and subjugated populations were exclusively repressive and exploitative until the victory of national liberation movements in the 1960s and 1970s.

If, for some contemporary scholars—for example, N. Beaupré and Fl. Louis, Histoire mondiale des impérialismes, 2026—“imperialism is the highest stage of the state,” then it is evidently so for Western states!

According to the doctrine—most often highly conservative—of Western jurists, both European and American, the norms of international law are the expression of the most “civilized” and “developed” societies, bearing the most advanced values in the history of humankind. “Supremacism” and racism already prevailed at the origins of the United States. This school of thought dominated the planet throughout the period of European colonialism.

Even today, European states cultivate the illusion that they are powers capable of playing a decisive role in international relations, despite their socio-economic contradictions and ideological vacuum. Having once been a great power—as France was after its victory in the First World War in 1918, when it possessed an immense colonial empire—is not easily “cured”: mythology takes the place of reality.

When international society fragments and no hegemony is exercised over it, as is the case in the present period, one conclusion is unavoidable: international relations operate essentially through relations of power, reinforced by the emergence of a libertarian form of “Trumpism” that rejects all multilateralism and is hostile to the United Nations and international law. According to the White House, American unilateralism “should” prevail solely by virtue of the supposed merits of American “Civilization”!

Added to this is the emergence, on every continent, of neo-fascist regimes—perhaps the final stage of a neo-capitalism in difficulty, apparently incapable of overcoming its problems, as illustrated, for example, by the massive indebtedness of the United States and France.

Moreover, the decision-making power of states within the international order has made no democratic progress. It remains, as always, hyper-concentrated in the hands of a few individuals in each state, and popular control does not exist—even when it comes to going to war or preparing for war, as the United States does with its 800 military bases on every continent. The “electoral legitimacy” that Western authorities constantly invoke as the “democratic” foundation of decisions within the international order is insufficient once one takes into account the role of money, foreign influence, and the media, which are privately owned by a handful of private fortunes—not to mention administrative manipulations such as the drawing of electoral districts.

Who can deny that the military interventions of recent decades against Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and others were initiated by a very small number of decision-makers and “special” services, outside any legal concern and without any popular consultation?

Under-information about international affairs, despite the so-called “permanent information” provided by television channels and social media, is the rule! Whenever events occur that cannot be ignored, the media multiply their commentary without “dwelling” on the facts, which public opinion is for the most part unaware of.

One may cite the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has lasted for decades; the massacre of “October 7”; the massacres suffered by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; and the Israeli-American aggression against Iran, which is presented primarily in terms of the rise in petrol prices. As for the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the media erase everything that preceded it and limit themselves to the positions of opposing heads of state and to the “Russian threat” supposedly weighing on the whole of Europe “up to NATO’s borders” (Le Figaro, sic!).

This simplistic but self-interested propaganda, repeated by almost the entire political spectrum, prevails in public opinion, which is more concerned with purchasing power, pension systems, and unemployment …

Some “adjustments” have nevertheless been made by the major media. Several examples may be cited:

“The UN is useless; it could disappear without causing any harm.”
“It is the European Union that saved peace, with the help of NATO.”
Today, Trumpist America, through its inconsistencies, is demanding that each European state concern itself with “its own sovereignty,” both economic and military. “Russia is aggressive and threatens NATO’s ‘borders’” (Le Figaro, sic!).
Economic law is being overturned by China’s advances: “free trade” and “free competition,” fundamental principles of the market, are now being denounced because they no longer benefit only the capitalist countries.

After a long period of propaganda, the question of human rights is no longer on the agenda, any more than humanitarian law is. The priority is now the notion of a “just war”—particularly against Russia, or against the supposed threat posed by “Arabs” to Israel. Bellicose currents are making the headlines.

Finally, under pressure from the far right, one must add the rejection of the right to asylum and of migrants, along with the theory of the “Great Replacement” and “Remigration,” which is affecting all European parties, including, to some extent, the Left.

The media, which bear even greater responsibility because of the very limited space they devote to international issues and to the law governing them, are increasingly confining public opinion—more xenophobic, racist, and chauvinistic, particularly among neo-fascists, who are present everywhere in Europe—within its own borders, including its cultural borders. It would be a serious analytical error to minimize this phenomenon in the development of the West, particularly in the United States—for example, by overlooking the practices of the ICE police. The strongest counterweights are the social movement and the younger generation, which are more effective than the “old parties,” whose influence continues to decline. The media avoid mentioning this in order to preserve the reputation of the representative system.

But the media are not solely responsible for this socio-cultural crisis, particularly in the legal sphere. Law faculties and the dominant legal scholarship, which are ultra-conservative, are aligning themselves with the general “climate.” They are turning away from questions of peace and social development, as well as from environmental issues. They express themselves “cautiously,” devoting themselves to technical and procedural subjects that falsely present themselves as apolitical—for example, in the field of “European Union law.”

As for the rest, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are declared “enemies” who cannot be taken into consideration …

The dominant hostility is directed toward Russia. It is more hesitant and cautious toward China …

The Global South is still viewed as a more or less “savage” whole, just as it was during the colonial era. Almost no one in the legal world or in the media mentions the new structures taking shape, including through the BRICS movement, energized by the People’s Republic of China! “Occidentalism” essentially remains silent about the “rest” of the world. It proclaims itself the only force “legitimate” enough to act anywhere in the world, as in the colonial era. Its profoundly imperialist spirit remains, even though it no longer possesses the means to act as it once did! The financial difficulties of the Western world, its internal divisions, and the challenge to the dollar as the global currency are pushing it toward militarism and a policy of escalation, as illustrated by its actions against Russia[1] and its threat to world peace. The violent and incoherent “Trumpist” style is also contagious, while alarming the ruling classes, who see the tearing apart of the “protective shield” that Europeans regarded as irreplaceable. They merely “mock” the White House while continuing to pledge their allegiance.

In short, the Western system no longer has the means to renew itself, refusing to draw on the hyper-concentrated capital that is doing perfectly well. Profit rates have been exceptional for roughly two decades, while poverty affects more than 20% of the population. The era of the “capitalism of seduction” of the 1970s is over; the era of repression, restrictions on freedoms, and the undermining of the “rule of law”[2] has arrived.

The European Union is seeking to save itself through deeper integration under Franco-German hegemony and, at the ideological level, through the militarization of minds. As for the industrial world, it will benefit from increased public subsidies through production financed in the name of national defense.

The conclusion is that international law, despite all its shortcomings—as well as the United Nations and specialized institutions such as the WHO and UNESCO, despite their limited means—in the face of the aggressive arrogance of the Western world and the dangers of war represented by an expanding libertarian capitalism, must be regarded as an indispensable weapon of popular resistance for maintaining peace and the equal sovereignty of states, which are constantly subjected to arbitrary sanctions.

Whatever the media and Western public opinion may think, international law remains an irreplaceable tool for creating a “world democracy” that respects the right of peoples to determine their own fate, even under conditions that are often unfavorable. We cannot accept the formula often put forward by the French media: “International law? That was then.”

Past and Future Norms

Lama El Horr – In addition to the media sector, three major symbols of American imperialism now find themselves in the dock: the dollar, synonymous with economic and monetary coercion; Israel and NATO, synonymous with colonial expansionism; and the structures that centralize the tools of Euro-Atlantic domination, namely the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO—but also, to a considerable extent, the ICC and the UN.

Opposite them, we are witnessing the emergence of alternative structures and tools whose purpose is to reduce the vulnerability of the global majority—represented by the SCO, the BRICS, and the Global South—to the coercive structures of the Atlantic bloc.

In the long term, do you foresee one world replacing another, or rather the readjustment of the legal norms governing structures dominated by the Atlantic bloc? In either case, how do you think China will be able to contribute to adjusting those norms?

Robert Charvin – The most spectacular contemporary phenomenon in international relations is the preponderance of relations of power. Beyond the great powers that have the means to advance their own interests, it is the dominant economic system—and, above all, its principal actors, the major industrial and especially financial groups—that imposes this logic of violence. The paradox is that peoples are simultaneously the victims of wars and of the various uses of armed and police force, while also being accused of bearing primary responsibility for them, even though they most often submit to the wishes of the dominant political forces.

This commonplace obviously contains an element of truth: the systematic manipulation of individuals and the increasingly aggressive instrumentalization of the most advanced technologies facilitate every form of submission[3].

The inequality prevailing between states and peoples is the fundamental obstacle to any peaceful regulation of international society, which is far from being a “community”—a profoundly misleading diplomatic term. Trumpist America and its political personnel, all militant advocates of the rule of the dollar and the systematic commodification of every human achievement, seek by every means to impose unilateralism, contrary to the necessary multilateralism that respects the rich diversity of the peoples and civilizations of the planet.

The creation of the “Committee for Peace,” bringing together around twenty more or less satellite states but already endowed with a budget greater than that of the UN, is a caricatural illustration of the devastating arrogance of the United States, still the world’s leading financial and military power.

Trumpist America, not without a degree of ridicule, appears as a permanent potential aggressor against every people, regarding itself for all eternity as the “center of the world” and of a “superior civilization”! All societies that cause inconvenience and whose resources are “appetizing”—from Iraq and Libya to Venezuela, Iran, and even Greenland—have experienced this. American violence, whether military or economically punitive—as in the case of Cuba or North Korea, or toward its European “allies” through sanctions and embargoes—leaves no room for international law. Trumpism even confers legitimacy on the neo-fascist movements emerging on every continent.

Not only have armed confrontations multiplied in recent years, directly or indirectly as a result of the White House’s actions, but the decisive question of the “environment”—the climate and the pollution destroying the living world—is being denied in a manner that threatens human beings, nature, the climate, and so on, despite warnings from the scientific community dating back to the 1970s.

The United States serves as a model and point of reference for all those who aspire to impose their hegemony. This is the case, for example, with the State of Israel in the Middle East, Milei’s Argentina, and “illiberal” regimes such as Poland. Countries deemed to be of no interest to the powerful, such as Haiti or most of the small island states, are abandoned to their fate, as are Indigenous peoples.

This increasingly degraded reality does not prevent the perpetuation of a repetitive discourse in favor of “liberal democracy,” supposedly held for all eternity by the Western states against the rest of the world.

This contradiction—which is highly debatable even at the domestic level, given the social misery and inequalities developing within those countries—is particularly profound at the international level.

The essential norms adopted at the end of the Second World War by the victors over Nazism, in the Charter of the United Nations, are tending to be openly repudiated. The fundamental principle of the “equal sovereignty” of all states is rejected, as though the last resort of Occidentalism were the complete destruction of its adversaries through a so-called “right of interference” or right of “protection”—concepts that, after their hour of glory, have lost all positive substance. See, for example, the French positions in the early 2000s, which claimed to “protect” human rights and impose a “democratic imperialism.”[4] The break with the “free self-determination of peoples” was in reality never genuinely accepted by those who possessed the power to impose themselves …

Today, the United States and NATO, while “rearming” in a bellicose spirit, are striving to destabilize “enemy” states such as Cuba and Venezuela by employing the worst methods and intervening through money and the most advanced technologies. Thus, the West no longer has allies but only “clients,” “neo-colonized” countries in the process of formation, or countries whose chaos has become permanent—for example, Libya, whose oil has been largely appropriated by the major companies since 2011.

The West has returned to the archaic “right of humanitarian intervention,” invented with the support of the Catholic Church, proclaimed in 1885 by the General Act of Berlin, and ideologically equipped with virulent racism.

Nevertheless, it must also be acknowledged that this practical and ideological “counter-revolution” of an “Occidentalist” nature is opposed by another path, including that of China, which carries values rooted in tradition that must be preserved—values already enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, our most precious legal legacy—as well as new methods for ensuring that they are better respected.

The maintenance of peace, the primary objective of the United Nations, obviously remains the fundamental principle to be preserved, despite every obstacle and even the most legitimate interests. Negotiation and diplomacy—in other words, politics and law rather than violence—must be strengthened through the principle of equality, that is, through the right of all peoples to development and socio-economic progress.

Today, such development requires respect for nature and the living world in all its forms. This entails the promotion of a new body of law, expressed in the COPs, but which is not yet binding! One might even envisage an international jurisdiction charged with punishing a new type of crime against humanity, consisting of all violations of the environment and, consequently, of human, animal, and plant life.

All efforts to slow progress in this area are just as criminal in nature as the most traditional armed confrontations. Indeed, one may even observe that they cause greater damage than wars.

In the current international context, which is undergoing profound renewal, forces have emerged that are advancing toward a new project for international society. These are the BRICS and the Global South, stimulated by the People’s Republic of China, without neglecting the opposition that persists in Western countries and that remains capable of contributing to this process.

China, which for centuries did not possess a dominant legal tradition and whose mechanisms of regulation were of a different nature, is tending to take responsibility for the survival of international law, replacing a West that now violates it without embarrassment and without invoking the legitimacy it once claimed on the basis of respect for law—at least formally.

If a new “community” of states does not affect the unity of the Chinese world, its immense historical patience, based on its conception of “long time,” which stands in contrast to the short-sightedness of a West committed to “everything and its opposite” and to “anything goes”—in reality, a great ideological vacuum—it may succeed.

It can simultaneously protect the sovereignty of each people and safeguard a climate of mutual tolerance for all political and cultural differences. What matters above all is cooperation in every field, conducive to balanced and egalitarian development freely chosen by each participating member. The “change of era” may be a process of continuous creation, gradually eliminating recourse to force and giving birth to a radically new international law. It is entirely conceivable that this new era could begin as early as 2049, the date of the centenary of the Chinese Revolution, provided that relations of power begin to shift in order to make this project of global transformation effective.

Law is effective only if it has the means to neutralize its adversaries, primarily through economic and financial means. Hence the need to leave the dollar-based world, which serves the United States—whose bankruptcy is never declared despite its $40 trillion debt. The new force is working toward this goal, including Africa, which wants, for example, to reject the CFA franc.

Peoples dissatisfied with the capitalist order might also free themselves, something that is exceedingly difficult today within the framework of Atlanticism and its tools of domination, which operate through the illegal use of sanctions, embargoes, and threats of military intervention.

If various international institutions need to be radically modified or abolished—such as the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank—then the UN and its Charter, the WHO, UNESCO, and other institutions capable of playing a progressive role in the development of international society must, on the contrary, be strengthened. These institutions need far greater financial contributions, and no one benefits from undermining them. If the UN is paralyzed, for example, this is above all the result of the actions of the states with the greatest resources. With additional means, its role could be highly positive.

The reforms to be undertaken could include expanding the Security Council to include states belonging to the “Global South,” particularly African states, and granting binding force to certain categories of General Assembly resolutions. The West is increasingly refusing to accept any legal constraints, for example, those that would limit the sweeping powers claimed by transnational corporations, which are often “richer” than many states themselves! It is through a living body of law that confirms the prohibition on the use of force, supported by a permanent UN peacekeeping force of its own, that violence can be stopped.

The notion of self-defense must also be clarified so as not to leave the door ajar to bad-faith interpretations. International law, which has always been in poor health, is on the verge of disappearing if the process currently under way accelerates. This can be seen, for example, in the scandal represented by Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians! Law must survive because it can be an effective progressive tool of struggle when it disrupts the freedom of the market and the power of large corporations.

Libertarianism is in power in certain countries, and multinational corporations ignore borders … except when it comes to human beings! The right to asylum and the rights of migrants are systematically violated. Migrants in the West are particularly mistreated, and techniques are being tested for outsourcing migration control in ways that openly violate the most basic human rights.

The entire body of international legal norms should in fact be rigorously clarified so that bad-faith interpretations, which are commonplace, can no longer prevail. Legal ambiguity produces a body of law that is either unintelligible or manipulative. The new era could be one of clarification in international law, which implies the mobilization of jurists trained “differently”—that is, in close association with experts in the other social sciences and humanities[5]. Interdisciplinarity is a scientific and progressive imperative, including for jurists.

China, for its part, is advancing with prudence, method, and effectiveness. This trajectory represents an extraordinary historical revenge against the West, which permitted itself to subjugate China in the nineteenth century.

China has already managed to play an irreplaceable role in the development of international society. It is integrating effectively into existing international institutions and creating new structures—the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a bank competing with the World Bank, and so forth. It is taking unprecedented initiatives, such as abolishing customs duties for 53 African states.

The quality of Chinese civilization and culture, as well as those of the BRICS and the states of the Global South—all of which have their own national wealth to offer the planet—should make possible a revival of universal and syncretic values with a view to creating a new international society based on multilateralism, independence, cooperation, and the maintenance of peace, despite inevitable contradictions.

The future is uncertain; it is the peoples who will decide. What is certain is that Occidentalism is running out of steam, despite its ability to adapt and its cultural power. Capitalism is seriously ill, with at most only 10% of the population doing well. The success of China and of those who follow the “Silk Road,” a source of new norms and new institutions, some of which have already come into being, would be to reverse those figures.

The growth not merely of China’s economic power but also of its international prestige can only serve the new era that is becoming possible. Much of this “Global Majority” depends on the quality of China’s governance as it escapes, through its “Sinicization,” the models that the still-dominant capitalist system seeks to impose.

International law can acquire a new function, not only as a structuring framework but also as a peaceful weapon with which to revolutionize the world against the so-called “authoritarian democracies” that are developing rapidly. The formula from the Charter of the United Nations—“We, the peoples …”—must be given full effect, in fidelity to the founders of the 1940s! International democracy remains to be invented without undermining international sovereignty, which must become more effective in the face of imperial excesses.

The Steep Price of the Social Contract

Lama El Horr – “We are responsible for what we see,” as someone once said … Do you not think that we may have exaggerated the extent the United States’ omnipotence—and, consequently, the degree of its grip over the rules supposedly governing relations among states? Both their allies and their adversaries have described them as a hegemon, a hyperpower—some have even gone so far as to describe the American imperialist order as the epilogue of universal history …

At the cost, certainly, of decades of suffocation and hardship, Iranian resilience has dismantled the assumption that capitulation in the face of a militarily superior adversary is inevitable.

Without unfairly imputing motives to the powers of tomorrow, how can we guard against a recurrence of this kind of illusion—the notion that a geopolitical adversary’s military superiority necessarily means the subjugation of the rest of the world? Is there any way to escape the maxim that “Might makes right”? Or will we always have to rely on the miraculous survival of the “wretched of the earth”—that is, on new Haitis, Cubas, Congos, Irans, and Palestines, among so many others—before managing to (re-)establish a social contract?

Robert Charvin – No one can dispute the “Americanization” of the majority of states around the world and of the way of life in many countries during the period following the Second World War, from which the United States derived every benefit without suffering the slightest material damage. The shortages experienced by European countries as a result of the destruction, together with the pseudo-“assistance” provided by the Marshall Plan, made the United States the model of an incomparable “modernity.” The young people of socialist-oriented countries and of many countries in the Global South were themselves attracted by the “American way of life,” despite American racial segregation. Jeans produced in the United States, clothing styles, and even hairstyles—including the controversy in East Germany—prevailed over efforts to promote culture, industrialize society, and advance social equality. Yet, for the first time in history, the role of money was reduced! The goal of communism—the improvement of human relations—seemed within reach.

The spectacular growth of the defeated country, West Germany, and of France, which had suffered during the years of Nazi occupation, nevertheless prevailed in the minds of a part of the population of Eastern Europe and perhaps of the Soviet Union itself. There appeared to be an attractive “West” and a stifling “grayness” in the “East”! The ideological battle does not seem to have been waged with the quality necessary to compete with the “capitalism of seduction”[6] of the 1960s and 1970s.

From 1947 onward, with the reintegration of political figures who had collaborated with the Nazis, the economic recovery and the ability of capitalism to promote a certain degree of social redistribution—reducing unemployment and increasing wages—combined with a conception of “democracy” that demanded little of its citizens[7], despite the wars against anti-colonial liberation movements, enabled the myth of the “free world” to take hold. The Cold War and the West’s intense hostility toward the USSR and China—linked to the Korean War, which marked the first, albeit partial, defeat of the American army—became NATO’s sole obsession, creating serious difficulties for socialist economies because of the financial resources they had to devote to national defense.

The defeat of the early 1990s and the relegation of Russia to the second rank of the great powers crowned the shift in relations of power in favor of Occidentalism.

Nevertheless, the successive crises of the capitalist world, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s, and the failures that led to the emergence of the “Third World,” created the conditions for a transformation in relations of power.

American omnipotence has deteriorated profoundly, particularly with the emergence of a Republican Party that has become ultra-reactionary and with Donald Trump’s arrival in the presidency and his incoherent policies. The United States and Europe have become fractured. The American “model” no longer attracts support; political trust has broken down, and economic contradictions have become intractable. Violence and force are now the essential tools of American hegemony[8]. The popular image of the United States has deteriorated profoundly, and its weapons have been reduced essentially to the dollar and military brutality. American imperialism is changing in nature and now manifests itself against its former allies. European servitude nevertheless continues in international and financial relations, but it is becoming less and less voluntary.

The “anti-totalitarian” campaigns directed against Russia and China are disintegrating with the rise of so-called “illiberal” regimes, which are in reality neo-fascist. This dismantling of American and, more broadly, Western propaganda opens up renewed prospects in international relations. The “seriousness” and “coherence” of the Chinese state and Communist Party, for example, are gaining ground in world opinion.

No one still treats China as a second-rate country. It is now regarded as a major political power, a first-rank military power, and, above all, a technological and scientific power with which it is necessary to negotiate. China has demonstrated that a people can liberate itself and establish itself on the international stage after a thousand difficulties, without submitting to every compromise—as the so-called “socialist” countries had to do after the Second World War, even though they were unable to adopt a mode of operation that was entirely “socialist” in nature.

The compromises that are always inevitable in international relations may now stop short of subordination, despite what the United States is attempting to impose on Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran through new forms of plunder. The effectiveness of American military force even appears to have been seriously weakened[9]. The defeat in Vietnam was the first warning; this was followed by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the at least partial loss of control over Iraq, Turkey, and the European Union, and the electoral defeat in Brazil in 2026.

What is certain is that, despite the technical and military superiority of the American forces over every army in the world, this superiority in no way guarantees an inevitable victory! In this regard, one cannot rule out the probable conflicting interests of the American ruling caste, which make its foreign policy incoherent[10], as well as the troops’ lack of fighting spirit. The door to the sovereign freedoms of peoples seems to be opening – if they are willing to pay the price. This was the case in the 1950s and 1960s for the colonized peoples of Africa who liberated themselves, such as Algeria, through their own efforts and with measured assistance from the USSR and Tito’s Yugoslavia—see E. Che Guevara’s Algiers speech.

Cuba also proves that, under the worst conditions, it was possible to resist a blockade lasting several decades, even though the situation today is extremely threatening.

One can imagine new, less premature revolutions in countries that are still unsuspected but where the conditions exist for the people to awaken to new values and new projects. In 1789, France, very isolated amid the European monarchies, was able to liberate itself and transform itself.

One may envisage the same process occurring in the medium term on every continent, perhaps particularly in Africa, where young people can no longer tolerate the presence of the former colonizers after so many decades of neo-colonial subordination—in the countries of the Sahel, or even in Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal.

Law will always need force in order to be respected and even in order to be created. It is the nature of that force that can change. The influence of ideas can transform everything if it combines with the peaceful mobilization of the masses. There is nothing preventing us from imagining intelligent, even subtle, “wretched of the earth” confronting the power of money.

The intellectual world in every country has a creed that may not be synonymous with illusion: might the forces of the mind—which cost less than military equipment—be capable of prevailing, provided they are substantial enough?

*Robert Charvin practised law at the Nice Bar and served as a university professor, Dean, and subsequently Honorary Dean of the Faculty of Law and Political Science at the University of Nice–Sophia Antipolis. He was also appointed Professor Emeritus. In addition, he has held various official positions and served in a number of voluntary and professional associations.

_______________________

NOTES

[1] The war against Yugoslavia and its destruction, the Helsinki Accords, the commitments made to the USSR during the Gorbachev period, and the gradual fascization of various Eastern European countries are “forgotten.”

[2] Critical jurists face increasingly severe difficulties in publishing their analyses, either because of de facto censorship or because of the reduced number of publications resulting from a lack of financial resources—for example, the journal Droits, published in Paris. See R. Charvin, Répliques. Droit international/Relations internationales. Pédone, 2022. Foreword by D. Alland.

[3] It should be noted that uncensored photographic and filmed images produced by press reporters contributed to bringing an end to the war against Vietnam waged by the Nixon administration. One remembers the photograph of the little girl burned by napalm, running along a road bombarded by the American army. Censorship put an end to freedom of imagery in the United States.

[4] See R. Charvin, “L’anti-souverainisme et l’ingérence destructrice,” in Répliques, op. cit., p. 116 et seq.

[5] See R. Charvin and G. Germani, Le mouvement « critique du droit » 1978–1987. Delga, 2026.

[6] See Michel Clouscard, Le capitalisme de la séduction. 1981; reissued in 2006 and 2009. Éditions Delga.

[7] The absence of social control by political power and the tolerated permissiveness granted to citizens, combined with repression limited to a small number of political or trade-union activists, created the illusion of a mythical “Freedom”—singular and capitalized—when in reality it essentially served to conceal the gradual, “velvet-footed” erosion of freedoms—plural and uncapitalized.

[8] The conduct of the United States toward the International Criminal Court and certain judges of the international jurisdiction is revealing: under no circumstances and for no reason are Americans prepared to submit to judicial proceedings. According to President Trump, it is the judges who should be subjected to sanctions for abuse of power.

It is true, however, that organized justice cannot exist outside a sufficiently homogeneous community. The creation of a criminal court within the international order was, it would seem, premature. The position of the African states that reject it, like the United States and Israel, shows that it cannot function within a deeply fractured international society.

[9] Faced with the primitive brutality of “Trumpist” American foreign policy, China follows one of its traditional principles: “crossing the river by feeling for the stones.” There is no reason to be surprised by the differences in practice and style between a country that emerged only a few centuries ago through the genocide of Indigenous Americans and China, whose known civilizational history spans more than 3,500 years and which is now succeeding in creating a synthesis between tradition and revolution.

[10] It may be noted that the European Commission is often paralyzed and fails to act simply because the heads of the member states do not wish to act.