International law did not evolve to create equality between states. It evolved to manage asymmetry of power. Its function has always been pragmatic: to stabilize relationships where force, economics, and influence already exist. Treaties do not neutralize power. They formalize it.
From the earliest maritime conventions to modern trade regimes, international law has reflected the interests of those capable of enforcing it. The post–World War II legal order is a prime example. Institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank were not neutral creations—they were designed by victorious powers to preserve stability on terms favorable to them. Enforcement mechanisms followed influence, not principle.
This reality matters today more than ever. Sanctions regimes, trade restrictions, and extraterritorial enforcement actions are routinely framed as legal compliance issues. In practice, they are instruments of pressure. Companies operating internationally learn quickly that “the law” is rarely the same across borders, and that compliance often means navigating political realities disguised as legal obligations.
For individuals and businesses, the mistake is assuming international law operates like domestic law—predictable, uniform, and impartial. It does not. Outcomes depend on jurisdiction, timing, alignment of interests, and the strategic posture of the parties involved. The same conduct may be ignored in one context and aggressively prosecuted in another.
Modern international disputes—whether involving assets, sanctions, or cross-border litigation—are rarely resolved by abstract legal argument alone. They are resolved through positioning. Who has jurisdictional advantage? Who controls enforcement mechanisms? Who can apply economic or reputational pressure?
Understanding international law as a system of managed power—not moral aspiration—allows clients to act realistically. It encourages early risk assessment, careful structuring, and strategic restraint. Those who cling to idealized views of international cooperation often discover, too late, that rules are only as strong as the interests behind them.
At Blackthorn Law, international exposure is treated as a strategic problem, not a philosophical one. The goal is not to debate what the law should be, but to understand how it is applied—and how pressure actually moves outcomes.
