The Struggle for an International Constitutional Order

I. Introduction

The struggle for an international constitutional order has been an ongoing challenge in global governance. Unlike national constitutions, which define legal frameworks for sovereign states, an international constitutional order seeks to establish fundamental legal principles that govern relations between states and international institutions. While international law has evolved significantly, the lack of a unified, enforceable framework remains a major obstacle. This article explores the theoretical foundations, historical developments, and ongoing efforts to shape an international constitutional order, using insights from legal scholarship and international practice.

International law has long played a crucial role in maintaining global order. However, the decentralized nature of international governance has made it difficult to establish a legal system that functions like a national constitution. Institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have contributed to a more structured legal order, but they lack the authority to enforce universal constitutional principles. This fragmentation has led to inconsistencies in global legal norms, where some states comply with international legal frameworks while others reject them based on national sovereignty.

Despite these challenges, scholars and legal practitioners continue to advocate for a more coherent and enforceable international legal order. Some argue that the UN Charter serves as a quasi-constitution, setting out fundamental principles such as human rights, state sovereignty, and collective security. Others believe that regional organizations, such as the European Union (EU), provide a model for supranational governance that could be applied on a global scale. However, the struggle for an international constitutional order is far from resolved, as states remain divided on key issues such as jurisdiction, enforcement, and legitimacy. This article delves into the historical evolution, theoretical debates, and practical obstacles facing this ongoing legal and political struggle.

II. Theoretical Foundations of International Constitutionalism

The struggle for an international constitutional order raises fundamental questions about the nature of global governance, legal authority, and the relationship between international and domestic legal systems. Theoretical perspectives on international constitutionalism provide different frameworks for understanding how international law operates and the extent to which it can function as a constitutional system.

Scholars have debated whether international law should be viewed as a coherent legal order akin to national constitutions or as a fragmented system driven by state interests and political power. This section explores key legal theories that inform the debate, including the tension between constitutionalism and sovereignty, the distinction between monism and dualism, and the role of soft law in shaping international norms.

1. Constitutionalism vs. Sovereignty: The Core Dilemma

One of the primary tensions in the development of an international constitutional order is the conflict between constitutionalism and state sovereignty. Constitutionalism refers to a system of governance based on legal norms, fundamental rights, and institutional checks and balances. In a national context, a constitution provides a legal foundation that limits government power and ensures accountability. However, applying constitutionalism at the international level is challenging due to the principle of sovereignty, which allows states to govern themselves without external interference.

Traditional international law has been built on the concept of sovereign equality, where states are the primary actors in shaping legal norms. While international treaties, customary law, and institutions like the United Nations attempt to impose legal constraints on states, the absence of a centralized authority weakens enforcement mechanisms. Some legal scholars argue that international law is evolving toward constitutionalism through institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and human rights conventions, which establish legal principles that transcend national sovereignty. However, others contend that these developments are limited in scope, as powerful states often resist legal constraints that threaten their autonomy.

2. Monism vs. Dualism: Competing Views on Legal Integration

Another important theoretical debate concerns the relationship between international and domestic legal systems. Monism and dualism represent two opposing views on how international law interacts with national legal frameworks.

• Monists argue that international law and domestic law are part of a unified legal system. In this view, international treaties and legal norms automatically become part of national law without requiring additional legislation. Countries that adopt a monist approach, such as the Netherlands, integrate international agreements directly into their legal order, allowing courts to enforce international legal principles.

• Dualists, on the other hand, maintain that international and domestic law are separate systems that operate independently. According to this perspective, international legal obligations must be incorporated into national law through legislative action before they have any legal effect. The United Kingdom and the United States follow a dualist approach, meaning that international treaties must be explicitly enacted through domestic legislation before they become legally binding.

The struggle for an international constitutional order is influenced by these differing legal philosophies. While monism facilitates the application of international norms, dualism reinforces state sovereignty by allowing governments to control the extent to which international law applies within their borders. This division complicates efforts to establish a coherent global legal order, as states vary in their willingness to integrate international law into their domestic systems.

3. The Role of Soft Law in Global Constitutionalism

In addition to formal treaties and legally binding agreements, soft law plays a significant role in shaping international constitutionalism. Soft law refers to legal instruments that lack binding force but influence state behavior and international norms. Examples include declarations, resolutions, and guidelines issued by international organizations, such as the UN General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Soft law is particularly relevant in areas where states are reluctant to commit to binding legal obligations but still recognize the need for global cooperation. It allows for flexibility in international lawmaking, enabling states to gradually develop legal norms that may later evolve into binding rules. However, the reliance on soft law also raises concerns about accountability and enforcement, as states can choose to ignore or reinterpret non-binding commitments without legal consequences.

Some scholars argue that soft law contributes to the constitutionalization of international law by establishing normative frameworks that guide state behavior over time. For instance, human rights norms that began as soft law principles have gradually been incorporated into binding international treaties. However, others caution that soft law lacks the enforcement power necessary to create a true constitutional order, as states can selectively adhere to international norms based on political convenience.

III. Historical Evolution of International Constitutionalism

The struggle for an international constitutional order has deep historical roots, stretching from the ancient world to modern global governance. While the idea of a universal legal system has evolved over centuries, key moments in history have shaped contemporary debates on global constitutionalism. From early attempts at codifying inter-state relations to the development of modern international organizations, this section explores the historical trajectory of international constitutionalism, highlighting pivotal developments such as the Westphalian system, the League of Nations, and the rise of the United Nations.

1. Early International Legal Frameworks: The Foundations of Global Governance

The origins of international constitutionalism can be traced back to ancient civilizations that sought to establish legal principles governing relations between different political entities. In the ancient world, treaties between city-states, empires, and religious communities played a crucial role in regulating diplomacy, trade, and military alliances. The early legal traditions of Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome set important precedents for international law.

The Roman Empire, in particular, developed a sophisticated legal system that influenced modern international legal thought. Roman law introduced the concept of jus gentium (law of nations), which applied to interactions between Roman citizens and foreign subjects. This principle laid the groundwork for the idea that legal norms could extend beyond national borders. Similarly, the medieval period saw the emergence of canon law and the influence of religious institutions in shaping legal principles that transcended individual states. These early legal frameworks established the notion that law could function as a universal ordering mechanism, a concept central to modern constitutionalism.

During the Renaissance and early modern period, the European world order became increasingly defined by legal treaties and diplomatic conventions. Thinkers such as Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius argued for a system of international law based on moral and legal principles rather than sheer power politics. Grotius’ seminal work De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) laid the foundation for modern legal norms governing war, sovereignty, and diplomacy. His ideas continue to influence contemporary debates on global constitutionalism, as they highlight the potential for a legal order that transcends state interests.

2. The Westphalian System and the Rise of State Sovereignty

The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) marked a defining moment in the historical evolution of international law, shaping the modern concept of state sovereignty. This treaty ended the Thirty Years' War and established the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. It formalized the idea that states had the right to govern themselves without external intervention, reinforcing the concept of national sovereignty as the cornerstone of international relations.

While the Westphalian system created a stable framework for European diplomacy, it also limited the development of a true international constitutional order. By prioritizing state sovereignty over supranational governance, Westphalia laid the foundation for a fragmented international legal system where states could engage in international agreements while retaining ultimate control over their legal obligations. This approach continues to influence modern debates on constitutionalism at the international level, as many states remain resistant to legal frameworks that impose constraints on their sovereignty.

Despite the dominance of the Westphalian model, the 19th century saw increasing efforts to create legal norms that extended beyond national boundaries. The Concert of Europe, established after the Napoleonic Wars, was one of the first attempts to institutionalize diplomacy and prevent conflicts through collective decision-making. Similarly, international humanitarian law began to take shape with the Geneva Conventions of 1864, which set legal standards for the treatment of prisoners of war and the wounded. These developments signaled a shift toward a more structured international legal order, albeit one still constrained by the principles of state sovereignty.

3. The 20th Century: From the League of Nations to the United Nations

The devastation of World War I prompted a renewed push for a more structured and constitutionalized international legal system. The creation of the League of Nations in 1920 represented an ambitious attempt to establish a legal framework for global governance. The League’s Covenant outlined principles of collective security, dispute resolution, and international cooperation. However, the organization lacked enforcement mechanisms, and major powers such as the United States refused to join, weakening its ability to function as an international constitutional authority.

Following the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II, the international community sought to create a stronger legal foundation for global governance. The establishment of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 marked a significant step toward a constitutionalized international order. The UN Charter introduced core principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, respect for human rights, and collective security through the UN Security Council. Many legal scholars view the UN Charter as a quasi-constitution for the international community, as it establishes fundamental legal norms that govern state behavior.

In addition to the UN, the post-war period saw the creation of other international institutions that contributed to the constitutionalization of global governance. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established as the principal judicial organ of the UN, providing a legal forum for resolving disputes between states. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) laid the foundation for international human rights law, reinforcing the idea that certain legal principles should apply universally, regardless of national borders.

The second half of the 20th century witnessed further developments in global constitutionalism, particularly in the areas of economic governance and international justice. The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 introduced a rules-based system for global trade, while the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 sought to hold individuals accountable for crimes against humanity. These institutions reflect an ongoing struggle to balance state sovereignty with the need for enforceable international legal norms.

IV. Key Challenges in Establishing an International Constitutional Order

The struggle for an international constitutional order is fraught with structural, political, and legal challenges. Despite the evolution of international law and the creation of global institutions, the enforcement and legitimacy of an overarching constitutional framework remain contested. The absence of centralized authority, resistance from powerful states, and concerns over democratic legitimacy complicate efforts to establish a functioning global legal order. This section examines the key obstacles that hinder the realization of an international constitutional system, focusing on sovereignty, enforcement limitations, power imbalances, and the role of non-state actors.

1. Sovereignty vs. International Constitutionalism: The Core Conflict

State sovereignty remains the most significant obstacle to an international constitutional order. Since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), sovereignty has been the defining principle of international relations, granting states the authority to govern their own affairs without external interference. While international law seeks to impose binding rules on states, the lack of a centralized authority means that compliance is often voluntary. Unlike national constitutions, which are enforced through domestic legal institutions, international constitutionalism lacks an overarching structure that can impose legal obligations on all states.

Many governments resist legal frameworks that infringe on their autonomy, particularly in areas such as human rights, security, and economic policy. This resistance is evident in the selective adherence to international treaties, where states often sign agreements but fail to implement them domestically. The United States, for example, has refused to ratify key international treaties, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), citing concerns over sovereignty and potential legal constraints on its military operations. Similarly, China and Russia frequently challenge international legal interventions, arguing that they violate state sovereignty.

While some scholars advocate for a constitutionalized international order that limits state power, others caution that such a system could lead to legal imperialism, where powerful nations impose legal norms on weaker states. This tension between legal universality and national self-determination complicates efforts to create a universally accepted constitutional framework. Without mechanisms to reconcile these opposing views, international constitutionalism remains an aspirational, rather than a fully realized, concept.

2. Weak Enforcement Mechanisms: The Challenge of Compliance

A key weakness in the current international legal framework is the lack of enforcement mechanisms. Unlike national constitutions, which are upheld by courts, law enforcement agencies, and governmental institutions, international law relies on voluntary compliance. Institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the ICC provide legal rulings, but they lack the power to enforce decisions without state cooperation.

For example, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for individuals accused of war crimes, yet many remain free due to the unwillingness of states to extradite them. The case of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, illustrates the limitations of international legal enforcement. Despite the ICC’s ruling, multiple countries, including ICC member states, refused to arrest him, highlighting the challenges of ensuring compliance.

Similarly, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has the authority to impose sanctions and authorize military interventions, but political divisions often paralyze its decision-making process. Permanent members such as the United States, China, and Russia frequently use their veto power to block resolutions that conflict with their national interests. This selective application of international law undermines the credibility of a constitutional order, reinforcing the perception that global governance is dictated by power dynamics rather than legal principles.

Without a centralized enforcement authority, international legal rulings often rely on diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, which are inconsistent and ineffective in many cases. The lack of uniform enforcement mechanisms weakens the legitimacy of international constitutionalism, as states can choose to comply with legal obligations only when it aligns with their interests.

3. Inequality Among States: Power Imbalances in Global Governance

Another major challenge in establishing an international constitutional order is the structural inequality among states. The international legal system is often criticized for favoring powerful nations while imposing constraints on weaker states. The dominance of Western legal traditions in shaping international law has led to accusations of neocolonialism, where developing countries are subject to legal norms that do not reflect their historical and cultural contexts.

This imbalance is particularly evident in the economic sphere, where institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) influence global financial policies. Developing nations frequently argue that these institutions prioritize the interests of wealthier countries, imposing economic regulations that benefit industrialized economies at the expense of emerging markets. The structural inequalities in global economic governance raise concerns about the legitimacy of an international constitutional order, as it risks reinforcing existing power hierarchies rather than promoting legal equality.

Moreover, the UNSC’s composition reflects historical power structures rather than contemporary geopolitical realities. The five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—hold disproportionate influence over global security decisions, sidelining other nations in critical international affairs. Calls for UNSC reform have gained momentum, with countries such as India, Brazil, and South Africa advocating for greater representation. However, resistance from the permanent members has stalled meaningful change, demonstrating the difficulty of achieving a fair and balanced international legal order.

4. The Role of Non-State Actors: Expanding the Scope of Legal Accountability

In addition to states, non-state actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs), international organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a growing role in shaping global legal norms. However, integrating these actors into an international constitutional order presents unique challenges, as they operate outside traditional state-based legal frameworks.

MNCs, for example, have significant economic and political influence, yet they often evade legal accountability due to jurisdictional limitations. Cases of corporate human rights violations, such as environmental degradation and labor exploitation, highlight the difficulty of enforcing legal norms on non-state entities. While initiatives like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide voluntary guidelines, they lack binding legal authority, allowing corporations to operate without strict accountability.

NGOs and advocacy groups, on the other hand, contribute to the development of international legal norms by pressuring governments and international organizations to uphold human rights and environmental standards. However, their influence varies depending on political conditions, and they lack formal legal standing in many international institutions. The challenge lies in creating legal frameworks that recognize the role of non-state actors while ensuring accountability and legitimacy.

Another emerging issue is the influence of technology and cybersecurity in global governance. Cyber warfare, misinformation campaigns, and data privacy concerns have created new legal challenges that traditional international law struggles to address. The absence of a global regulatory framework for cyberspace underscores the limitations of existing legal structures in adapting to modern challenges.

V. Case Studies of International Constitutionalism in Practice

The struggle for an international constitutional order is not just a theoretical debate; it manifests in real-world legal frameworks and institutions that attempt to regulate global governance. While no single entity functions as a global constitution, certain legal structures embody constitutional elements by establishing enforceable legal norms, defining rights and obligations, and creating mechanisms for dispute resolution. This section examines three key case studies that illustrate both the potential and the limitations of international constitutionalism: the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

1. The International Criminal Court (ICC): Advancing Global Justice

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 marked a significant milestone in the development of international constitutionalism. Created by the Rome Statute, the ICC is the first permanent international court with the authority to prosecute individuals for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Unlike previous international tribunals, which were established for specific conflicts (e.g., the Nuremberg Trials, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia), the ICC is designed to function as a standing legal body with global jurisdiction.

From a constitutionalist perspective, the ICC represents an attempt to enforce universal legal norms that transcend national sovereignty. It establishes clear rules for criminal accountability, ensuring that heads of state and military leaders can be held responsible for violations of international law. The court's existence challenges the traditional notion that state sovereignty is absolute, reinforcing the principle that certain crimes are of global concern and cannot be shielded by domestic legal systems.

However, the ICC also illustrates the challenges of implementing an international constitutional order. Many powerful nations, including the United States, China, and Russia, have refused to join the ICC, arguing that it infringes on national sovereignty.

The court has also faced difficulties in enforcing its rulings, as it lacks the ability to arrest suspects without state cooperation. The case of Omar al-Bashir, the former president of Sudan, highlights these limitations. Despite an ICC arrest warrant for crimes against humanity, multiple countries refused to extradite him, demonstrating the court’s reliance on voluntary compliance.

The ICC’s mixed success underscores the ongoing struggle to create a truly enforceable global legal framework. While it represents progress in the constitutionalization of international law, its inability to secure universal jurisdiction and ensure compliance remains a significant obstacle.

2. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Balancing Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is another key example of international constitutionalism in practice. Endorsed by the United Nations in 2005, R2P establishes the principle that the international community has a duty to intervene in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity when a state fails to protect its own citizens. It is built on three pillars:

1. The state’s responsibility to protect its population.

2. The international community’s responsibility to assist states in fulfilling this duty.

3. The international community’s duty to take collective action if a state is unwilling or unable to protect its people.

   
   

R2P represents an effort to constitutionalize humanitarian intervention, establishing a legal basis for overriding state sovereignty in extreme cases. It reflects a shift from the Westphalian model of absolute sovereignty toward a system where the protection of human rights is prioritized over non-interference.

However, R2P has been highly controversial in practice. Critics argue that it has been selectively applied and manipulated for political purposes. The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya was initially justified under R2P to prevent mass atrocities by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. However, the mission quickly evolved into regime change, leading to allegations that R2P was used as a cover for geopolitical objectives. This selective enforcement undermines the legitimacy of R2P, reinforcing skepticism about the feasibility of an international constitutional order.

Conversely, the failure to apply R2P in Syria despite large-scale atrocities demonstrates the doctrine’s limitations. Political divisions within the UN Security Council (UNSC), particularly vetoes by Russia and China, prevented coordinated international action. This inconsistency raises concerns about the enforceability of international legal norms and the ability to uphold constitutionalist principles on a global scale.

While R2P represents an important step toward an international constitutional framework that prioritizes human rights, its uneven implementation highlights the difficulties of balancing legal principles, political realities, and enforcement mechanisms.

3. The World Trade Organization (WTO): A Legal Framework for Global Trade

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is often cited as one of the most structured examples of an international legal order. Established in 1995, the WTO regulates global trade through a set of binding agreements that govern tariffs, subsidies, and trade barriers. Unlike many other international institutions, the WTO has a dispute resolution mechanism that allows states to challenge violations and seek legal remedies.

From a constitutionalist perspective, the WTO is significant because it provides a rules-based system that limits state discretion in trade matters. It enforces legal predictability and stability, ensuring that economic relationships are governed by law rather than power politics. The WTO’s appellate body functions similarly to a constitutional court, interpreting trade laws and ensuring compliance among member states.

However, the WTO also faces criticism regarding its legitimacy and fairness. Developing nations argue that the organization favors wealthy economies, as trade agreements often benefit industrialized countries at the expense of emerging markets. The Doha Development Round, which aimed to address these disparities, has stalled due to disagreements between developed and developing nations, exposing the difficulties of achieving legal equality within an international legal order.

Additionally, recent challenges to the WTO’s dispute resolution system have further weakened its authority. In 2019, the United States blocked appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body, effectively crippling the organization’s ability to adjudicate trade disputes. This move highlighted the fragility of international legal frameworks when powerful states refuse to comply with established norms.

While the WTO demonstrates the potential for structured international legal governance, it also reveals the limitations of enforcement in a world where economic and political power continue to shape legal outcomes.

VI. Proposals for Strengthening an International Constitutional Order

The struggle for an international constitutional order is ongoing, but reforms could strengthen the legal frameworks that govern global interactions. While current international institutions like the United Nations (UN), International Criminal Court (ICC), and World Trade Organization (WTO) contribute to a rules-based global system, they often suffer from enforcement challenges, power imbalances, and legitimacy concerns. To create a more structured and enforceable international constitutional order, reforms must address sovereignty conflicts, enhance accountability, and improve institutional efficiency.

This section outlines key proposals for strengthening international constitutionalism, including reforming global institutions, improving enforcement mechanisms, and enhancing democratic legitimacy. These reforms aim to establish a more coherent and effective legal framework that ensures international law is applied fairly and consistently across nations.

1. Strengthening the Role of International Courts and Legal Enforcement

One of the biggest obstacles to an international constitutional order is the lack of a centralized enforcement authority. Unlike national constitutions, which rely on courts, police forces, and legislative bodies to enforce laws, international law depends on state cooperation. Without reliable enforcement, legal rulings often go ignored, undermining the credibility of global governance.

To strengthen enforcement, reforms should focus on:

• Expanding the Jurisdiction of International Courts: The International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) need broader jurisdiction and greater state participation. Some powerful nations, such as the United States, China, and Russia, have refused to accept ICC jurisdiction. Encouraging universal ratification of the Rome Statute could enhance the ICC’s legitimacy and ability to prosecute crimes against humanity.

• Creating Binding Legal Obligations for Non-Cooperative States: The UN Security Council (UNSC) often struggles to enforce international rulings due to political vetoes. A proposed reform could introduce automatic penalties for states that ignore legal obligations, such as economic sanctions or restricted diplomatic privileges.

• Establishing an International Legal Enforcement Mechanism: A dedicated Global Enforcement Unit under the UN could be created to ensure compliance with international legal rulings. This unit could work in collaboration with regional courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, to improve enforcement at both global and regional levels.

By enhancing the role of international courts and enforcement agencies, global governance could function more effectively, ensuring that legal norms are respected across different political systems.

2. Enhancing Democratic Legitimacy and Global Representation

A major critique of international constitutionalism is that many institutions suffer from a "democratic deficit," meaning they lack direct representation of the global population. The UN Security Council, IMF, and WTO are often criticized for favoring wealthy nations, sidelining the voices of developing countries. To create a more inclusive and legitimate international constitutional order, reforms should focus on expanding representation and ensuring transparency.

Key proposals include:

• Reforming the UN Security Council (UNSC): The UNSC’s current structure reflects post-World War II power dynamics, granting permanent membership and veto power to only five countries (the US, UK, France, China, and Russia). Expanding permanent membership to include emerging powers such as India, Brazil, and South Africa could improve global representation and reduce power imbalances.

• Creating a Global Citizens’ Assembly: A new international body, modeled after the European Parliament, could allow citizens from different countries to elect representatives to discuss and influence international legal frameworks. This assembly would not replace the UN General Assembly but would act as a consultative body to ensure that international decisions reflect global public opinion.

• Increasing Civil Society and NGO Participation: Non-state actors, such as human rights organizations, environmental groups, and indigenous representatives, should have a greater role in shaping international law. The UN Human Rights Council and WTO should provide formal mechanisms for NGOs to participate in decision-making processes.

Enhancing democratic legitimacy in international governance would make legal institutions more accountable and representative, ensuring that international laws reflect the interests of all nations, not just the most powerful ones.

3. Reforming International Institutions for Greater Efficiency

Many global institutions suffer from bureaucratic inefficiencies that delay decision-making and weaken enforcement. The slow response of the UN to humanitarian crises and the gridlock in WTO trade negotiations illustrate the need for institutional reform. Strengthening international governance requires streamlining operations, reducing political deadlock, and modernizing decision-making procedures.

Key institutional reforms could include:

• Reducing the Use of the Veto Power in the UN Security Council: The frequent use of vetoes by permanent UNSC members has paralyzed international responses to conflicts, such as in Syria and Ukraine. A proposed reform would limit the use of veto power in cases of humanitarian intervention, ensuring that legal decisions are based on collective security rather than national interests.

• Improving Dispute Resolution in the WTO: The WTO’s Appellate Body has been weakened by US-led opposition, making it harder to resolve trade disputes. Restoring this mechanism and ensuring that dispute resolution remains independent from political pressure would enhance the WTO’s effectiveness in regulating global trade.

• Adopting Digital Governance Solutions: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technology could improve transparency and efficiency in global institutions. AI-driven legal analysis could help resolve disputes faster, while blockchain could be used for tracking treaty compliance in a tamper-proof manner.

Institutional reform would help international organizations function more efficiently, reducing delays, political deadlocks, and legal inconsistencies.

4. Balancing Sovereignty and International Constitutionalism

One of the most contentious issues in the struggle for an international constitutional order is the balance between national sovereignty and global legal norms. Many states remain hesitant to cede authority to international institutions, fearing that external legal frameworks might interfere with domestic governance.

To address this concern, reforms could focus on:

• Encouraging Regional Legal Systems: Rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all approach, international constitutionalism could operate through regional agreements. Organizations such as the African Union (AU), European Union (EU), and ASEAN could act as intermediaries between national governments and international law, making global legal norms more adaptable to local contexts.

• Providing Opt-In Legal Frameworks: States could be given greater flexibility in adopting international legal norms by implementing tiered levels of commitment. For example, instead of mandating all nations to adopt a global environmental treaty, a framework could allow different levels of participation based on a country’s economic and industrial capacity.

• Creating "Sovereignty Safeguards": New legal protections could ensure that states retain the ability to opt out of international agreements under specific conditions. This would provide reassurance to nations that international constitutionalism would not erode their sovereignty beyond agreed limits.

A hybrid approach, balancing sovereignty with international accountability, could make global constitutionalism more acceptable to a wider range of states.

VII. Conclusion

The struggle for an international constitutional order remains one of the most complex and enduring challenges in global governance. While international law has evolved significantly, efforts to establish a unified constitutional framework face persistent legal, political, and structural obstacles. The tension between state sovereignty and global legal norms, the lack of enforcement mechanisms, and power imbalances continue to hinder progress. However, as demonstrated in the case studies of the ICC, R2P, and WTO, the international community has made important strides toward creating enforceable legal frameworks that transcend national boundaries.

Despite these advancements, the limitations of existing institutions highlight the need for reforms that enhance accountability, legitimacy, and efficiency. Strengthening the role of international courts, expanding global representation, and reforming institutional structures are essential steps toward building a more functional international constitutional system. Addressing concerns over sovereignty through regional legal frameworks and tiered commitment structures could also make international constitutionalism more acceptable to a broader range of states.

The future of an international constitutional order will likely be shaped by geopolitical shifts, technological advancements, and evolving global challenges. Issues such as cybersecurity, climate change, and artificial intelligence will require new legal frameworks that go beyond traditional state-based governance. While achieving a fully constitutionalized international system may remain an aspirational goal, continued efforts toward legal coherence, institutional reform, and democratic legitimacy can help strengthen the foundations of a more just and enforceable global legal order.

References

Books and Articles from the PDF

• Armstrong, D. (2009). Routledge Handbook of International Law. Routledge.

• Weller, M. (2009). "The Struggle for an International Constitutional Order." In Routledge Handbook of International Law (pp. 179-194). Routledge.

• Koskenniemi, M. (2009). "The Legacy of the Nineteenth Century." In Routledge Handbook of International Law (pp. 141-153). Routledge.

• Paulus, A. (2009). "International Law and International Community." In Routledge Handbook of International Law (pp. 44-54). Routledge.

• D’Amato, A. (2009). "International Law as a Unitary System." In Routledge Handbook of International Law (pp. 101-112). Routledge.

Web Sources

• Santos, E. (2024). "Latin American International Law: Regionalism to Resistance." Diplomacy & Law. Retrieved from: https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/latin-american-international-law-regionalism-to-resistance

• Santos, E. (2024). "The Nineteenth Century’s Impact on Modern International Law." Diplomacy & Law. Retrieved from: https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/the-nineteenth-century-s-impact-on-modern-international-law

• Santos, E. (2024). "International Law in the Ancient World: Origins, Practices, and Influence on Modern Systems." Diplomacy & Law. Retrieved from: https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/international-law-in-the-ancient-world-origins-practices-and-influence-on-modern-systems

• Santos, E. (2024). "International Law as a Unitary System." Diplomacy & Law. Retrieved from: https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/international-law-as-a-unitary-system