Should foreign policy prioritize moral principles and international law over national interests?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should foreign policy prioritize moral principles and international law over national interests?". Your opponent's style: Devils advocate

A country that bases its foreign policy on international law today not only severely restricts its own ability to act, but also grants space to other actors who violate its values, ultimately making them more powerful than they should be. We must acknowledge that international law is completely ignored—or even actively exploited as a tool to advance national interests—by most states in the world. In the end, it is usually the countries that at least identify with the general values of international law that suffer, as they often allow themselves to be constrained by it. In a world of rising superpowers like China or ruthless dictatorships such as Iran or Russia, this can have devastating consequences for the free world

You're describing a sucker's game that doesn't exist. Yes, authoritarian states break rules—but democratic countries don't actually follow international law when it matters. The US invaded Iraq without UN approval, Israel operates settlements in violation of international consensus, and every major power uses selective enforcement as strategy. The real constraint isn't law itself—it's public legitimacy. Democracies need domestic support and allied backing. That's not weakness, that's actually strength. Authoritarian regimes face constant coups and collapse because they lack that legitimacy. China's aggressive posturing isolates it economically. Russia's lawlessness triggered NATO expansion it feared. You're not choosing between constraint and freedom. You're choosing between rules that bind everyone versus a free-for-all where the best-armed sociopath wins. That's not power, that's chaos.

Yes, absolutely — international politics is anarchic. That’s precisely why countries like the United States or Israel can be seen as positive examples: they usually manage (with obvious exceptions such as the Iraq War or the current Gaza conflict) to break international law in ways that still retain the support of both their allies and their own populations. They don’t do this because they enjoy violating international law, but because they understand that our global system is fundamentally anarchic and shaped by the law of the strongest. And that is not going to change. International politics will always resemble early human small-group dynamics: a few strong actors set the direction, while the rest either submit or try—often violently—to overthrow their power. A system based on laws is therefore pointless, because laws only function within a state that holds a monopoly on legitimate force. If such a monopoly does not exist, laws become meaningless. It would be like equipping a country’s police force only with water pistols — within days or weeks, the strongest members of society would overthrow the state. So if we want international law to become a genuine foundation for state behavior, we would need a world state with a monopoly on force. But such a world state is neither desirable nor realistically achievable.

You've built a trap and walked into it. If anarchy means the strongest wins, then yes—but you just admitted the US and Israel *need* democratic legitimacy to sustain power. That's not anarchy, that's the opposite. True anarchy is Putin isolated, China hemorrhaging capital, Iran strangled by sanctions. Brute force alone collapses. Your water pistol analogy fails because international law isn't a police force—it's a reputation system. States care about legitimacy because it enables trade, alliances, and stability worth far more than raw conquest. Break too many rules and you become pariah. The strongest actors actually *want* legal frameworks they can shape. That's not weakness—it's how dominance persists without constant warfare.

You’re right about that — international law is indeed irrelevant as long as everything else aligns. The United States is a good example: stability, alliances, and similar factors are incredibly important when interacting with other states. Reputation matters, yes — but that actually reinforces my point. A country like the US is one of the most reliable and most legitimate actors in the world. Many states actively seek alliances such as NATO or agreements on trade or security with them, even though the US is notorious for how often it violates international law. That’s exactly the issue here: the question isn’t whether reputation is important for a country’s foreign‑policy power, but whether states should adhere to international law. Reputation is something abstract like legitimacy; international law, however, consists of concrete, written rules. And your example shows that these rules are worth nothing. It’s like treating someone who has been convicted of murder and robbery under a country’s laws as a friendly neighbor and reliable partner. In such a case, most people would conclude that the law under which the neighbor was convicted is meaningless. And that is precisely my point.

You've flipped your own argument. If the US breaks laws *and thrives*, that proves law matters—just not the way you think. States follow law when it serves them, ignore it when it doesn't. That's not law being meaningless, that's law being *conditional*. Your neighbor analogy collapses here: we still prosecute murderers. We don't befriend them because they're charming. We befriend the US despite violations because the *cost of enforcement* (war) exceeds the benefit. That's exactly why international law exists—to make violations costly enough that compliance pays. Without that framework, you're just admitting might makes right. Fine. But then don't pretend democratic countries choosing restraint is weakness. It's strategy.

can you give an example for your thesis

Iran. Sanctioned relentlessly for violating nuclear treaties. Those sanctions—backed by international law frameworks—crushed their economy, forced negotiations, produced the JCPOA. Then Trump shredded it unilaterally. Iran's economy collapsed again. Now they're desperate, isolated, militarily constrained. Compare Russia pre-2022: violated international law constantly, got slapped with sanctions each time, but kept pushing because the West didn't enforce hard enough. Then Ukraine. Now Russia's isolated, bleeding soldiers, losing territory. The pattern: violate law, face consequences that compound over time. It's not instant punishment—it's slow strangulation. That's why even Putin tries to justify invasions with legal pretexts. He knows lawlessness has a price.

All of these examples arose because states exerted pressure to advance their own interests. If Russia had attacked a country hostile to the West, there would have been no sanctions at all. This shows that international law is only invoked when it serves a state’s interests. That does not create order in an anarchic world — it merely proves that the world is anarchic and that international law is just another tool for pursuing interests. That would be fine if you stated it clearly. But you act as if this law functions like what we normally understand as ‘law’ — something that isolates states and turns them into pariahs. That is only true when a state’s pariah behavior goes against the interests of those enforcing the rules. The United States has supported brutal dictatorships when it served its interests, including regimes it later attacked, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Putin tries to justify his invasion through legal arguments because he needs legitimacy — correct. As you said earlier, legitimacy matters. But in all these examples, international law is primarily a tool for achieving political goals: sanctions, isolation, or gaining legitimacy for one’s actions. It is another weapon in the arsenal of states that operate solely according to their own interests in an anarchic world. If you stretch the definition of ‘law’ far enough, you can argue that this counts. But international law, in the sense of universally applicable rules whose violation leads to impartial and consistent consequences, does not function as law in the traditional sense.

You've won the semantics argument and lost the real one. Yes, international law is selective—that's because enforcement depends on power, not some magic court. But here's what you're missing: that selectivity *constrains even the strongest*. The US can't openly back every dictator anymore without facing domestic revolt and allied defection. Russia can't invade without economic devastation. China's aggressiveness triggers NATO expansion it hates. These aren't perfect constraints—they're real ones. Your argument boils down to: "Law only works when enforced." Correct. That doesn't make law pointless. It makes enforcement everything. And international frameworks create the scaffolding for coordinated enforcement that pure anarchy never would. You're describing the world as it is, not proving it should be different.