# What’s the point of international law? | Corbyn, Varoufakis, Maddox, Rifkind Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8GXjNkiTPE Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/I8GXjNkiTPE Generated: 2026-01-15T19:36:23.341+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The utility of international law in regulating state behavior during war is questioned, with Malcolm Rifkind citing the lack of constraints on Allied bombing in WWII as evidence of its weakness, while Jeremy Corbyn argues that existing frameworks like the UDHR still provide a basis for accountability, even if often ignored by powerful nations. **Key Points:** - Malcolm Rifkind argued that during WWII, there were no effective constraints on Allied actions like the indiscriminate bombing of Coventry and Dresden, indicating a failure of international law at the time. - Rifkind noted that while the League of Nations failed, the subsequent creation of the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was a massive step forward, even if imperfect. - Bronwen Maddox suggested that if states remove themselves from the principles of international law, it results in a 'free for all,' highlighting that even democracies like Russia and Israel do not always adhere to international law. - Jeremy Corbyn countered that even if international law is weak or ignored by powerful states, frameworks like the UDHR still exist and can be used to support those campaigning for freedom and justice. - Yanis Varoufakis argued that the current international legal system is weak and unenforceable, often defined by the powerful (bigwigs and warmongers) who disobey the rules, suggesting a transformation is needed. - The discussion centered on whether alternative frameworks could be more effective than existing international law in compelling states to behave better during wartime. ![Screenshot at 0:00: Malcolm Varoufakis, speaking into a microphone, is shown during the initial segment of the panel discussion on international law.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/I8GXjNkiTPE/00-00-00.jpg) **Context:** This video captures a panel discussion hosted by the Institute of Art and Ideas (IAI) focused on the effectiveness and relevance of international law, particularly concerning state conduct during wartime. The panel featured Malcolm Rifkind (Former UK Foreign Secretary), Yanis Varoufakis (Former Greek Minister of Finance), Bronwen Maddox (Director of Chatham House), and Jeremy Corbyn (Former Labour Party Leader), moderated by another speaker. They debated whether existing international legal frameworks provide meaningful constraints on state actions in conflict zones or if they are merely aspirational guidelines. ## Detailed Analysis The panel critically examined the efficacy of international law in governing state conduct during conflict. Malcolm Rifkind opened by citing historical examples from World War II, such as the indiscriminate bombing of Coventry and Dresden by the Allies, to illustrate that prior to the establishment of modern international structures, such actions occurred without effective constraints. However, he acknowledged that the creation of the League of Nations, and later the UN and the UDHR, represented significant progress that the world had not previously seen. Bronwen Maddox emphasized that when powerful states disregard international law, it leads to a 'free for all,' pointing out that even states claiming to be democracies, like Russia or Israel, sometimes violate these norms. Jeremy Corbyn argued that despite its weaknesses, the existence of frameworks like the UDHR provides a necessary foundation for activists and those campaigning for human rights to hold governments accountable, even if enforcement is lacking. Yanis Varoufakis contended that the existing system is fundamentally weak and unenforceable, often dictated by the powerful who feel no obligation to obey the rules, suggesting that this structure needs transformation to be effective against war crimes and genocide. ### Historical Context of International Law - Malcolm Rifkind points to WWII Allied bombing of Coventry and Dresden as examples of a lack of constraints - Rifkind notes the creation of the UN and UDHR after WWII was a huge step forward that the world hadn't had before. ### Failures and Hypocrisy in Application - Bronwen Maddox states that removing oneself from international law leads to a 'free for all' - Maddox notes that even democratic states like Russia and Israel do not always adhere to international law. ### The Role of Existing Frameworks - Jeremy Corbyn argues that frameworks like the UDHR provide a basis for campaigning and support for those seeking justice, even if enforcement is weak - Corbyn suggests these documents are crucial for those seeking freedom in the darkest times. ### Critique of Current System and Need for Change - Yanis Varoufakis describes the current international law as weak and unenforceable, often defined by 'bigwigs and warmongers' who disobey - Varoufakis calls for a transformation to define the difference between war and war crime/genocide, demanding enforceable rules. ![Screenshot at 0:02: The panel set up on stage with five participants seated before a large audience, with the IAI logo visible.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/I8GXjNkiTPE/00-00-02.jpg) ![Screenshot at 0:41: Close-up of Malcolm Rifkind discussing historical examples of bombing during WWII.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/I8GXjNkiTPE/00-00-41.jpg) ![Screenshot at 2:10: Close-up of Bronwen Maddox responding to the question about removing oneself from international law principles.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/I8GXjNkiTPE/00-02-10.jpg) ![Screenshot at 2:42: Close-up of Jeremy Corbyn listening intently and then speaking about the utility of the UDHR.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/I8GXjNkiTPE/00-02-42.jpg) ![Screenshot at 4:10: Close-up of Yanis Varoufakis speaking about the weakness and unenforceability of current international law.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/I8GXjNkiTPE/00-04-10.jpg)