International law and the difficulty of dealing with Trump at war | Letters

Readers respond to the dilemmas facing Europe and Keir Starmer with the Iran conflict International law has evolved a lot since the 17th century, when sovereign nation states became the agreed structure of Europe. The United Nations charter, agreed after the second world war, aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. While some European leaders still mention it in their social media posts and it gets a tick‑box mention in many official statements, clearly international law is today in critical condition. Many think it hopeless, pointless and even naive to try to save it. But international law is not something abstract, not a creed for pacifists, nor old-fashioned liberal legalese. It was chiselled into history, decade after decade, by people hardened and scarred from the cruelty of violent nationalism. It is meant to restrain the “strong man” leader. As the legal framework for two great peace projects, the European Union and the Good Friday agreement, it still restrains a lot of strong men. The UK is also still, thankfully, part of the European convention on human rights. International law is the invisible glue binding nations together, to resolve their disput