I recently attended the London Conference on International Law where our new Attorney General Ellie Reeves KC,MP, AG, PC gave a striking address to the conference on 2nd October 2026 which I reflect upon in this op-ed. What she said in my view was fundamental and critical in terms of the public understanding the importance of public international law. International law is not merely the province of lawyers, diplomats and statesman, but it is has direct effect on economic conditions, the global world order and world trade. Without international law there would be chaos on the international financial markets, disruption in global trading, more difficulties in international relations and indeed some dire economic effects for all as we see in fragmentation that is currently hurting economies around the world today. Public international law consisting of treaties, conventions, and cases before the international courts as well as questions of climate change and the environment are not matters that can be ignored. Similarly, the institutions that are established under international law notably the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank established after the Second World War are key to fostering trust and confidence in the global trading system and international relations. Regional organisations such as the European Union also play their role in fostering economic harmony between sovereign states. Ensuring free trade and the regeneration of the Most Favoured Nation trading status providing equal treatment to all its member trading partners.
Returning to the Attorney General’s speech, she gave numerous examples of the benefits of international treaties enabling transport of goods across borders, freedom of the Seas, passports enabling people to travel between different states, foreign travel permitted under the Chicago convention, recognition of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, extradition and enforcement of criminal proceedings, and the work of the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice in enforcing respective remedies for a breach of legal rights. To people going about their daily lives the price of goods and transportation are clearly directly affected by world events. The Attorney General gave the example of the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East.
The fundamental point in arguing for international law is that it establishes an international rule of law within which international trade and international relations can be facilitated. Overriding that the main objective of institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation is to preserve world peace and harmonise world trade. But today as several speakers argued at the London Conference in Westminster these institutions are under threat. A key example is the World Trade Organisation. The regulation of prices and exchange of goods and services is fundamental to economic relations. This is why the European Union has evolved to enable fairer trading between European states reducing costs. During World War II the Roosevelt administration in the United States considered how reconstruction would it be possible at the end of the war. Under the Marshall Plan the United States was able to invest in Europe to accelerate its recovery. Roosevelt’s administration also invented the World Bank and played a leading part in the founding of the United Nations. The United States for many years led the free world in its support for democracy and the rule of law. As in the 1930s, however, the United States recently seems to have reverted to its old isolationism and protectionist ideas which are not only outdated but as in the 1930s proved disastrous.
At the London Conference Professor Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University in the United States lamented the undermining of the World Trade Organisation and was at pains to argue in favour of its reform after the disruption of recent years. It ensured a fair basis for smaller nations to trade with larger nations. Supply chains could be regularised without the complexity and disruption of tariffs such as those introduced by Mr Trump on 2 April 2025. It was forcefully argued that this does no good for America or its economy or for the global economy. Such misplaced approach attitude of protectionist policy will unravel if history is any lesson. Some of the issues in the US economy were caused by China joining the global system and the discretion that China was given which seriously affected US jobs in certain industries. The current approach appears to be do what you want in the name of national security so that in negotiation the US can insist on its terms excluding others based on its national security. In other words, national security clauses in trade agreements are now used as a weapon.
We may see an acceleration in the rise of regionalism in response to the bullying of the United States so that states will group together and not act holistically in global harmony. What we now have it appears is a trend towards a multilateral system undermining the World Trade Organisation which is fundamentally a political strategy. Undoubtedly the World Trade Organisation is a relatively outdated organisation and requires modernisation. The idea of the World Trade Organisation was obviously a correct one in terms of ensuring free trade between states whatever their size and avoiding bullying by one state against a smaller state. The main benefits of the World Trading Organisation were that such an organisation applied rules dispassionately: the reverse can be said of the current approach of the United States. The US administration’s recent rejection and attacks on the judges of the International Court of Justice and other international courts is completely out of character with the settlement after the last war. As Professor Hillman said that the World Trade Organisation needs one set of rules that are more cohesive for member states and not fragmentation which causes more complications of administration in trading. In terms of Mr Trump’s tariffs, it was pointed out that it is not just a matter of the percentage of tariff on the good, but also an added 2.5%. It was also suggested that the trading system must include a means of dealing with climate change and restoring trade rules that member states can accept.
In conclusion it appears that unless confidence in the global trading system can be restored and the tendency that might is right can be reversed then the predictions of global recession may be avoided. That requires a certain form of leadership and statesmanship without the unpredictable and confusing pronouncements displayed from across the Atlantic. Despite such phenomena I came away from the London Conference assured that the institutional instruments of global governance are surviving, albeit as a process of evolution, modernization is required to meet these current challenges.
