They made a desert and called it peace

The postwar multilateral architecture is facing a profound crisis, even as unprecedented global threats such as climate change and artificial intelligence can only be tackled through collective action. Yet, a growing number of states are abandoning collective governance and directly violating the core principles of the UN Charter. While international law has suffered major infractions in the past—such as the illegal invasion of Iraq—the current landscape reveals a systemic and deliberate dismantling by governments openly hostile to the multilateral order.

Military interventions that violate international norms are becoming increasingly normalised, paradoxically in the name of peace. Several major powers are withdrawing from international organisations like UNESCO and the WHO or cutting their funding, while states and influential actors establish parallel structures to serve their own interests, stripping the UN of its raison d’être. High-ranking UN officials, including Secretary-General António Guterres, have been declared unwelcome in certain countries, and collective security treaties, such as those banning the use of certain weapons, are being rejected.

At the same time, the drastic reduction in budgets for multilateral bodies and NGOs is paralysing the protection of civilians as humanitarian crises accumulate. Hospitals, ambulances, and schools are increasingly being targeted deliberately and indiscriminately, and the number of civilian casualties—particularly children, humanitarian workers, and journalists—has risen dramatically. According to the UN, the number of children killed in conflicts in 2025 reached at least 6,266 global victims, 2,725 of whom were in Palestine.

For the countries of the Global South, multilateralism has always suffered from a pro-Western bias. International courts face accusations of primarily targeting African leaders or adversaries of the West, while Western perpetrators did not have to answer for their crimes. This perception of a ‘double standard’ intensified when the United States attacked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to block investigations into Afghanistan or Palestine.

These deviations mark a dangerous return toward unilateralism and the law of the strongest and are aggravated by the fact that many states prefer to protect or support their allies rather than defend international law. Luxembourg also bears its share of responsibility to defend the multilateral system in both word and deed. In this regard, the closure of the ICC’s Luxembourgish bank accounts has been sharply criticised as a capitulation to external pressures and a weakening of international law.