Acting Against Authoritarians: Legitimate Roles for Shared Norms and Institutions

Authors

• Claudio Grossman, American University Washington College of LawFollow
• Diane Foley, Foley Foundation
• Roger Carstens, McCain Institute
• Cara Horan, U.S. Department of State
• Michael A. Newton, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolFollow
• Louis-Martin Aumais, Global Affairs Canada

Streaming Media

Abstract

Description: Authoritarian regimes have increasingly sought to exploit legitimate legal avenues as fulcrums to advance illicit objectives. As Emir Vattel observed, such pretexts represent “homage which unjust men pay to justice” because they implicitly acknowledge the existence of a shared system and an accompanying understanding that it would be unseemly to “openly trample on what is most sacred in human society.” Recent examples of this phenomenon include the rise of Hostage Diplomacy under the guise of legitimate domestic law enforcement. In recent years, several states have attempted to appropriate INTERPOL mechanisms to achieve their own narrow political objectives rather than strengthen international police cooperation in pursuit of legitimate objectives. Even where states share normative convergence derived from shared institutional objectives and lex lata, divergences over legal innovations to counteract authoritarian actions continue to fester. Ongoing debates in the International Law Commission and other international venues on these divergences have inspired domestic legislation reforms in many states. Yet, despite the strictures of INTERPOL’s constitution, some states have framed persecution of political opponents as appropriate advancement of collective human rights goals. This panel will discuss the modern misuse by authoritarian states and debate the most beneficial avenues for responding to this frequent misuse of otherwise legitimate mechanisms and institutions.The 2025 ASIL Annual Meeting questioned the efficacy of our international law traditions and the impact of ongoing transitions in the existing world order. Which traditional elements of international law and institutions remain effective, and which may not be fit for purpose? What can we learn from ongoing transitions for addressing contemporary challenges? Of which transitions should we be skeptical and why? What insights can non-lawyers such as diplomats, journalists, natural and social scientists, technology experts, commercial actors and artists offer as we probe the efficacy of traditions and transitions in international law?

External Links

• Link to original post of audio recording: https://soundcloud.com/americansocietyofinternationallaw/acting-against-authoritarians-legitimate-roles-for-shared-norms-and-institutions-5?in=americansocietyofinternationallaw/sets/2025-asil-annual-meeting 
• Conference program: https://asil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025_AM_Program.pdf
• Full transcript: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-asil-annual-meeting/article/acting-against-authoritarians-legitimate-roles-for-shared-norms-and-institutions/E28D1B9DBD5886FCADB05CEC75DE2B88

Source Publication

American Society of International Law

Repository Citation

Claudio Grossman, Diane Foley, Roger Carstens, Cara Horan, Michael A. Newton & Louis-Martin Aumais, Acting Against Authoritarians: Legitimate Roles for Shared Norms and Institutions, American Society of International Law (2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/pub_disc_media/659