International Law, Power, and Reality: A Reforming Britain View
International law may have a role in encouraging people to step back from conflict — but it is not a substitute for power, responsibility, or judgment.
International law is often spoken of as if it were a binding force that governs the behaviour of states. In practice, it exists largely in the minds of globalist lawyers and international conferences, not in the real conduct of world powers.
There is no functioning system of “international law” that constrains states in the way domestic law constrains citizens. Russia, China, Iran, and even the United States do not meaningfully submit their core interests to international law. When their security, power, or survival is at stake, they act — and they always have.
International law, as it is commonly invoked today, is largely a European invention, developed by relatively weak states as a substitute for power: a well-meaning but ultimately vain attempt to delegitimise force by legal argument. It has rhetorical value, but little coercive force.
What Actually Exists: Force and Reputation
In reality, there are only two currencies in international relations:
Force – the ability to defend interests, deter enemies, and impose consequences
Reputation – the trust, legitimacy, and moral authority a state builds over time
Reputation matters. There is a reason millions of people want to leave their own countries to live in democratic states. Democracy, the rule of law, and personal liberty are powerful attractions.
But reputation without force is meaningless.
If democratic values are not backed by military strength, they are merely aspirations — easily ignored by hostile regimes. This is the lesson history teaches again and again.
The Forgotten Lesson of British History
Victorian Britain understood this.
Edwardian Britain understood this.
Winston Churchill understood this.
They understood that:
a strong economy funds military power
military power underwrites diplomatic influence
and influence protects national interests and values
Somewhere along the way, Britain — and much of Europe — forgot this. We replaced strength with legalism, deterrence with declarations, and hard power with seminars.
Democracy Must Be Defended, Not Merely Declared
This is why actions taken by strong democracies should not be judged solely through the lens of international law as interpreted by European legal elites. Figures such as Keir Starmer, trained in that tradition, instinctively reach for legality first — even when legality is detached from moral reality.
When a militarily and economically strong democracy acts against a hostile regime that:
works with enemies of the West
undermines democratic interests
and impoverishes its own people
the correct question is not “is this legal under international law?”
The correct question is “is this right?”
Venezuela and Moral Clarity
In the case of Venezuela, many would argue that removing a corrupt and hostile regime — one that has devastated its own population and aligned itself against democratic interests — is morally defensible, even if international lawyers object.
What matters now is not legal purity, but what comes next for the Venezuelan people. If they emerge with greater freedom, stability, and opportunity than they have endured over the past generation, that outcome should be welcomed.
There have even been reports — still unclear — surrounding damage to the grave of Hugo Chávez. Whether accidental or not, it is telling that few Venezuelans appear eager to memorialise a socialist whose legacy many associate with economic ruin and repression.
Reforming Britains Position: Reality Over Rhetoric
The fantasy that international law alone can secure peace or justice.
We believe:
democracy must be defended, not merely proclaimed
a strong economy is essential to national security
military strength is the foundation of credible diplomacy
moral clarity matters more than legal theatre
International law may have a role in encouraging people to step back from conflict — but it is not a substitute for power, responsibility, or judgment.
A world without illusions is uncomfortable.
But it is the only world in which Britain can act seriously again.