Revolutions in “Superpowers” and Their Impact on Geopolitical Reconfiguration of the World and International Law

Abstract Despite Kantian hopes, prevailing at the end of the Cold War, today’s world is revealing more of its Hobbesian characteristics. Why? Because in the absence of a balance of power the arrogance and recklessness of a remaining superpower cannot be tamed by international law. That is why those principles of international law that belong to the law of coexistence, using Wolfgang Friedmann’s terminology, namely: respect of sovereign equality of states, non-use of force and non-interference in domestic affairs should retain and reinforce their role. Without such a basis those of cooperation and integration produce destabilizing effects. Consequently, there has been widespread use of so-called humanitarian intervention, rise of the concept of responsibility to protect (i.e. the right to intervene), attempts to resolve complicated geopolitical problems through the recourse to international criminal jurisdiction etc. Notwithstanding countless differences, there have been striking similarities between revolutionary changes in three big states as well as the roles played by the very different leaders—Deng Xiaoping, Mikhail Gorbachev and Donald Trump. All of them have had considerable effect on the geopolitical structure of the world. The West did wholeheartedly welcome Gorbachev, whose policies led to the collapse of the “evil empire”, while it has become worried about success of Deng’s reforms. Moreover, to understand why Trump became the forty-fifth president of the United States, we should pay less attention to his personal qualities or manoeuvres and more to the deep social forces that propelled him to the top. He has been like a small boat caught on the crest of a mighty tidal wave. The new evolving geopolitical reality requires explicit recognition of the new balance of power as one of the important conditions of a relatively peaceful world and basis of international law. “Peace through strength”, on the contrary, paves the way to armed conflicts since in the absence of constant diplomatic efforts other centres of power will have no choice but also to respond from the position of strength.