Decolonisation of International Law: The Unfinished Revolution of the Global Justice in the 21st Century.

Abstract

International law, which was once portrayed as a universal framework of justice, was historically conceived within the hierarchies of the empires. The colonial encounter embedded within its doctrines a Eurocentric worldview that privileged Western norms as “universal” and relegated non-Western systems to the margins of legality. Despite the political decolonization of the twentieth century, international law remains structurally colonial in its institutions, sources, and epistemologies. This article will interrogate the persistence of colonial powers dynamic which are within the global legal order, and it will explore the contemporary movement aimed at decolonizing international law. It will examine the legacy of imperialism found in the discipline’s formation, the asymmetries which are in global governance, and the scholarly interventions of the Third World Approach to International Law (TWAIL), it argues that decolonization remains an unfinished revolution, one that may extend beyond political sovereignty to epistemic, institutional, and normative liberation. This paper calls for a pluralistic reimagining of the global justice grounded in inclusivity, recognition, and shared authority; it proposes pathways for reconstructing international law as a genuinely equitable and multipolar order in the twenty-first century.

Introduction

The discipline of modern international law, though it is presented as a neutral and universal system governing the relations between sovereign states, it is deeply entangled with the history of colonialism and empires. From its earliest formulations in the writings of Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius, and Emer de Vattel, international law literally developed in tandem alongside  European expansionism, legitimising conquest and unequal encounters under the guise of civilization and order.¹ What emerged was basically not a universal law among equals, but a hierarchical global regime that differentiates between the “civilized” and the “uncivilized,” between those who are entitled to sovereignty and those subjected to control.²

The twentieth century has witnessed waves of political decolonisation as Asian, African, and Latin American states have reclaimed independence from imperial rule. Yet as postcolonial scholars have noted,” legal decolonization did not follow political decolonisation.” ³ the structures, languages, and institutions of international law continued to reflect Eurocentric assumptions of rationality, governance and justice. The international community, which is embodied in the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, and later in the International Criminal Court, remained largely dominated by Western powers. ⁴ Consequently, the postcolonial state has entered the international legal order not as an equal partner, but as a subordinate participant in a pre-defined, Western-centric framework.

The project of decolonisation of international law therefore arises from this tension which is between formal equality and substantive inequality. It thereby challenges the premise that international law can remain universal while being exclusive historically. Antony Anghie argues, that the foundation of international law rests upon the colonial encounter the relationship between Europe and the non-European world which defined who counted as sovereign and who did not.⁵ Similarly, Makau Mutua critiques the discipline’s self-representation as a civilizing mission, identifying the recurrent metaphor of the “Savage–Victim–Savior” which frames non-Western states as the victims of barbarism rescued by Western legal norms.⁶ This epistemic architecture continues to inform the functioning of contemporary international institutions, from the humanitarian intervention doctrines to the operation of global trade and financial systems.

The call to decolonize international law has again re-emerged with urgency in the twenty first century. The rise of multipolarity, the resurgence of the Global South diplomacy, and the critique on selective justice at the International Criminal Court have exposed the enduring inequalities of the so-called “rules-based international order.”⁷ Decolonisation hence  is no longer confined to the political realm; but it now extends into the epistemological domain where the ways knowledge, legitimacy, and authority are constructed and there distributed globally. Scholars of the Third World Approach to International Law (TWAIL) argues that true decolonisation requires a transformation in how international law is taught, interpreted and practiced with emphasis on voices and traditions that have long been silenced. ⁸

This article argues that the decolonization of international law represents an unfinished revolution a continuing struggle for epistemic and institutional justice. From the first part examining the historical foundations of international law as an instrument of the empires. The second which then analyses the persistence of colonial hierarchies within contemporary international institutions. The third, it engages with TWAIL and other postcolonial movements that have been seeking to reframe the discipline. The final section it envisions pathways towards genuinely decolonized global order, one which is rooted not in domination but in pluralism, solidarity and mutual recognition.

Therefore, this paper situates decolonization as intellectual and a moral imperative. The legitimacy of international law in the twenty-first century literature depends on its capacity to shed its imperial heritage and reconstitute itself as a law that is of inclusion, equality and shared humanity. Until then, the revolution that began with the end of empire remains incomplete.

Historical Foundations: The Colonial Roots of International Law

The history of European colonialism led to the origin of international law. Far from being universal, the discipline emerged as a legal and moral framework for imperial expansion. Early jurists such as Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius often hailed as the “fathers” of international law developed doctrines that justified European conquest, commerce, and domination under the guise of natural law and civilization. [^1]

During the Age of Discovery, European empires sought legal rationales for annexing non-European territories. Vitoria’s De Indis lectures (1539) denied that Indigenous peoples were “natural slaves,” yet still subjected them to European natural law permitting conquest if they resisted Christianization or trade. Similarly, Grotius’s Mare Liberum (1609) proclaimed the freedom of the seas but in practice legitimated Dutch colonial expansion in Asia. As Martti Koskenniemi observes, these doctrines “universalized a European political experience, turning it into the grammar of world order.” [^2]

The Doctrine of Discovery and Terra Nullius:

 the Doctrine of Discovery and the terra nullius led to the juridical foundation for dispossession. The Doctrine of Discovery, rooted in papal bulls like Inter Caetera (1493), it granted Christian monarchs the right to claim lands which were not ruled by Christian powers. The concept of terra nullius deemed lands “empty” if they were not cultivated according to European norms, which enabled conquest across Africa, the Americas and Oceania. These doctrines rendered Indigenous sovereignty as legally invisible. The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, which led to the division of Africa without African consent, epitomized how law served the empire.

The Standard of Civilization:

By the nineteenth century, the Standard of Civilization became the principal criterion for membership in the international community. Only states meeting European norms, Christianity, private property and codified laws were recognized as sovereign. Non-European states were “semi-civilized” or “barbarous,” forced into unequal treaties and protectorates. This system formalized racial and cultural hierarchies which embedded exclusion into the fabric of international law. As Gerrit Gong noted, it institutionalized Europe as the normative core and others as peripheral subjects. [^3]

From Empire to Institutionalization:

The League of Nations and its Mandate System (1919) transformed overt colonialism into “tutelage.” Article 22 of the Covenant described colonized peoples as “not yet able to stand by themselves,” legitimizing continued European control under humanitarian rhetoric. The United Nations Charter echoed these paternalistic tones in Article 73, which framed decolonization as a “sacred trust”, after World War II. The veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council entrenched hierarchies that continued to shape global governance.

Reassessing of the Legacy:

The genealogy of international law thus reveals its dual identity as both a project of order and that of domination. Colonial doctrines of sovereignty and the civilization established structural inequalities that persist in contemporary global relations. Decolonizing international law, therefore it requires confronting its imperial origins and reconstructing it from the margins and this a project that remains central to achieving genuine global justice.

Postcolonial inequalities and the rise of TWAIL:

The mid twentieth century decolonisation brought about hope that newly independent states could reshape international law. However, material conditions remained unequal. The following limited the development of the Global South: the trade conditions, debt dependence and structural adjustment programs. Instead of liberation, international law continued to act a tool meant for control. Scholars in response from the third world approach to international law (TWAIL) movement which included people like Chimni, Makau Mutua and Antony Anghie all provided a very strong critique. They argued that international law functioned as a system of global governance which upheld colonial domination under the guise of liberal and humanitarian ideals. These following often hide the uneven power relations: doctrine of Intervention and the enforcement of human rights. The New International Economic Order of the 1970s, it represented a collective effort by the global south to create an economic justice, however neoliberal globalisation soon rolled back these achievements. TWAIL scholars thus focus on critique and rebuilding. They expose the colonial roots of law while also creating a space for a diverse of legal traditions and solidarity within the global South. TWAIL redefines international law as a contested area, as it can oppress however it can also be a potential avenue for freedom. The challenge now is to change it from an exclusive regime to one that acknowledges historical injustices and the variety of all human experiences.

Decolonisation of global justice in the 21^st century:

The current global justice system often tends to reflect old hierarchies, for example the International Criminal Court, mainly has targeted African states while it overlooked powerful Western entities. This type of pattern raises concerns about selective type of justice and the racial dynamics of international accountability.  Makau Mutua notes that the “savage victim saviour” narrative has influenced human rights discussions, depicting the Global South as a place which is of constant crisis needing outside help. The environmental justice further it highlights colonial legacies.  The nations facing the worst impact are the ones that contributed the least in greenhouse gas emission and many of them are in the Global South. International climate has failed in providing fair compensation or adaptation mechanisms. To decolonise Global Justice, there is a need for a call for climate reparations and a fair loss and damage framework. Digital colonialism is the new area of dependency presented through digital technology. Companies and states from the Global North have power over data, algorithms and surveillances and this mirrors past extraction patterns. For this issue to be addressed we require not only legal regulations but also a shift in thinking about who defines progress, privacy and rights in the digital age. Decolonisation of Global Justice means going beyond formal equality to real change. This process involves acknowledging historical responsibilities, redistribution of power and fostering of multiple understandings of law and community.

Pathways aimed towards a decolonised Global Order

Decolonisation of international law requires changes in structure, knowledge and values.

1. Restructuring of institutions. Global institutions need to reflect regional and demographic diversity by reforming the UN Security Council, democratising voting in the IMF and World Bank while ensuring fair participation in international tribunals are very crucial for establishing legitimacy.
2. Epistemic decolonisation. The Euro-American ideas still dominate legal education and scholarships. Universities should be encouraging South-south collaborations which highlights indigenous legal systems and accept non-western traditions as valid source of law. Chimni emphasizes on challenging Western ideological dominance as vital for creating a more inclusive legal understanding.
3. Another one is historical accountability. True decolonisation involves addressing legacies of slavery, resource extraction and cultural loss. Mechanisms for reparations, restitution and acknowledgement within international law such as returning stolen artifacts or providing fair colonial exploitation compensations are all ethical necessities and not just merely political gestures.
4. Lastly solidarity and pluralism. A decolonised order prioritizes cooperation over dominance. Movements such as the Non- Aligned Movement, Pan African legal thought and South-South dialogue all offered alternative visions which are grounded in mutual respect. All these initiatives suggest a multicentric world where diverse legal traditions coexist without any hierarchy.

In the end, decolonisation is not literally just about international law but rebuilding it on much fairer grounds.it involves changing a system of control into a framework for justice.

Conclusion

The task of decolonisation of international law is still ongoing, while formal empires may have fallen, their structures persist in law, economics and the production of knowledge. Shifting international law from a Eurocentric view to a global conversation is one of the twenty first century, one that honours diversity, and it also addresses historical injustices and thereby redistributes power. Decolonisation requires both remembrance and imagination as we must remember the wrongs that shaped our present and envision futures that go beyond them. Only through institutional reform can diverse knowledge and genuine solidarity can internation law fulfil its promise of universal justice

Reference(S):

1. Antony Anghie, imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law (Cambridge univ. Press 2005).
2. S Chimni, international law and world order: A critique of contemporary approaches (2d ed. Cambridge univ. Press 2017).
3. Makau Mutua, Savages, Victims and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights, 42 Harv. Int’l L.J. 201 (2001).
4. Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civiliser of nations: The rise and fall of international law 1870-1960 (Cambridge Univ, Press 2001).
5. Sundhya Pahuja, decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the politics of Universality (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011).
6. United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, June 26, 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI.
7. TWAIL Network, Third World Approaches to International Law: Manifesto, 2007 (online).
8. Chimni, The Birth of a “Discipline”: From Colonialism to International Law, 1 J. Hist. Int’l L. 1 (1999).
9. Makau Mutua, What Is TWAIL? 94 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 31 (2000).
10. S. Chimni, The Past, Present and Future of International Law: A Critical Third World Approach, 8 Melb. J. Int’l L. 499 (2007).