Editorial #42: Resist. Persist. Repeat.

Dearest gentle reader,

I’m sorry to be the one to convey the message, but this was only January, not all of 2025. And while “we listen and we don’t judge” has been a lovely trend for revealing guilty pleasures, hot takes and the latest BookTok absurdities, not being judgy has been an impossible task in the face of last weeks’ developments.

While Donald Trump is, again, US president and we are, again, talking about him buying Greenland (see here for our 2019 analysis as well as here for a current one), the newly installed leader of the most powerful (western) nation not only decided to rename the Gulf of Mexico and proposed to “take over” the Gaza strip and turn it into a “riviera”; he also initiated the process to withdraw from the WHO within his first term in office. Fully in line with his presidential – or personal – rampage, he issued another executive action withdrawing the US from the 2015 Paris Agreement, several executive orders limiting the rights of immigrants, refugees and other minorities in the US (see here for a summary) and decided to shrink USAid significantly. Unfortunate, though not surprising (as our authors partly predicted here and here).

On a positive note, depending on the perspective of course, he did put a pause on the TikTok ban – which he set the stage for during his first presidency – suspending the block on the App’s availability in the US to less than 12 hours. Besides relevant ressentiments towards ByteDance’s data protection, many US users had chosen to express their frustration with the US government and power of tech companies in the days before the ban by doing the opposite of what was expected of them: Moving on to the Chinese App “RedNote” (小红书, English: little red book). As some TikTok user said:

“Learning Mandarin out of pettiness was not on my 2025 bingo card, but here we are.”

Whilst at least the last episode sounds like a funny, yet slightly concerning anecdote, it brings us to the more serious part of this piece and ties it to the underlying question: If a group of frustrated TikTok users can defy expectations by adapting, resisting, and finding new ways to connect, what does that tell us about resilience on a larger scale? Because resilience is not just about coping – it is about recalibrating, pushing back, and refusing to let setbacks dictate the future. And nowhere is this more crucial than in international law.

While the international legal community has been confronted with eroding tendencies even before Trump’s first presidency (see here), and definitely after it (see here), the rise of right wing leaders in European countries, a general shift towards more conservative agendas as well as the number of wars and military conflicts of our time make it difficult not to feel like things are moving back- rather than forwards. The US president’s latest decisions just seem to continue a line of shortcomings the international legal order has to deal with: frustrations after the COP29, countries withdrawing from international treaties or armed conflicts that have reached an impasse.

Resilience of and in International Law

“And what has all of this to do with resilience?”, one might ask. Let me come to that.

While the WHO defines the term in a health context as “related to processes and skills that influence good individual and community health outcomes, in spite of negative events, serious threats and hazards”, I quite prefer the more physical definition in order to make my point:

Resilience is “the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress”.

Oh boy, and stressful it is. Nevertheless, examples for the resilience of international law – and its community – are vast.

Shortly after Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, European Commission President von der Leyen emphasized Europe’s dedication: “The Paris Agreement continues to be the best hope for all humanity. So Europe will stay the course, and keep working with all nations that want to protect nature and stop global warming.” Although the US’s withdrawal must be considered a setback for the global efforts against climate change, it might also give other countries the motivation – and opportunity – to position themselves as a global beacon for environmental concerns.

The international courts such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have continued their work despite political resistance and criticism (see here and here). The ICJ, for instance, has recently demonstrated its role as a forum for legal accountability by hearing high-profile cases on genocide allegations, such as South Africa vs. Israel. Similarly, the ICC has faced attempts to delegitimize its authority, including sanctions planned by the US under the old and new Trump administration; yet it has persisted in prosecuting war crimes, issuing arrest warrants for leaders accused of atrocities in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza. While these courts remain flawed and enforcement difficulties are of an intrinsic nature (see here for an in-depth analysis), their continued operation – despite efforts to sideline them – signals that international law, though challenged, persists.

Also, the civil society has never stopped pressing and arguing for the rule of law, pointing out violations and demanding justice. Legal advocacy groups have filed strategic litigation in national and international courts, challenging unlawful state actions, from climate lawsuits against major polluters through to efforts to hold political leaders accountable for their crimes. Grassroots movements, investigative journalism, and independent scholarship have played a crucial role in keeping legal norms a living and thriving instrument, ensuring that violations do not go unnoticed, even when political institutions fail to act. Their resistance and persistence emphasize that international law is not only upheld by courts and diplomats, but by the people who refuse to accept impunity as the status quo.

What CAN We Do…

So, what do we do – or rather: What can we do? While building an online community is always a lovely idea (find us on BlueSky), moving collectively to a different app or cancelling car purchases might be a way to express dissatisfaction with the “tech bros” of the 21^st century, but does not primarily strengthen the international legal community.

We, as scholars, practitioners and members of said community, have to defend the institutional integrity of the international bodies and courts, such as the ICJ, the ICC or other UN bodies – especially when major powers try to undermine them. This includes all the beautiful legal mechanisms we know about to challenge unlawful actions and holding those committing them accountable. An example of how such an act of resilience may look like could be witnessed in the Al-Khatib-Trial and in latest international court decisions.

Legal norms can be strengthened through practice and commitment. It is not the first time that the US’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement was announced. The same happened during his last presidency in 2017. Instead of allowing the withdrawal to weaken the agreement, the EU, China, and other major players reaffirmed their commitments. The EU launched the European Green Deal, committing to climate neutrality by 2050 and significantly increasing its climate targets. Individual US states, cities, and businesses decided to step up with coalitions like “We Are Still In“, showing that international commitments could be upheld even without federal support.

And besides a lot of other things, but definitely not least, it is crucial to ensure that young legal scholars and practitioners remain committed to international law, despite political turbulence. Education, mentorship, and public engagement ensure the viability of legal norms across generations. This is something we, the team of the Völkerrechtsblog, whole heartedly embrace and have tried to keep going for the last 10 years.

… and Why We SHOULD Do It

As this editorial is nurtured by more than a small dosage of, as I was assured of, millennial typical pathos, it shall also lighten the mood in a time in which it is difficult to find lightness.

Notwithstanding international law being under strain, it is on the ones believing in its idea and underlying principles – democracy, equality and community – to keep going and defend those three not so little words. The Völkerrechtsblog tries to do its bit by allowing and encouraging lively discourse as well as giving voices a forum to be heard. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail. We welcome anybody who is willing to take to the road with us.

But resilience is as much about victory as it is about loss and therefore, we shall end with handing the idealists and optimists as the realists and pessimists something they may come back to: Do not lose heart in the face of power-hungry leaders and the comeback presumed dead totalitarian regimes and fascists. Resist! Persist! Repeat!

Or with the words of a tiny, blue fish: “Just keep swimming.”