Luc Ferry and the Justification of Force: Has the Era of Universal International Law Ended?

The recent intervention by French philosopher Luc Ferry on the 'LCI' channel raised fundamental questions about the future of the international system, especially concerning the legitimacy of military strikes against Iran. His discourse revealed a profound shift in the vision of Western intellectual elites, who have begun to move away from the concept of international legitimacy as a binding framework for all.

Observers believe that Ferry's logic reduces international law to a selective perception, distinguishing between what he described as 'respectable states' and 'outlaw states'. This approach necessarily leads to undermining the principle of legal universality upon which the modern global order has been founded for many decades.

The danger in this proposition lies in transforming law from a normative ethical and legal system into a functional and strategic tool. According to this perception, the activation or deactivation of law becomes dependent on the nature of the political actor and the interests of major powers, not on the principles of justice and sovereign equality.

This shift reflects what can be called 'the politicization of law', where adherence to international rules no longer stems from the principle of legal obligation. Instead, it has become linked to the balance of power on the ground, thus reproducing political concepts that were prevalent before the crystallization of the contemporary international system.

Ferry's thesis establishes a kind of 'legal relativism' that fatally undermines the idea of equality among member states in the international community. When legitimacy is tied to the political description of the actor instead of the legal rule, we return to the law of the jungle where power is the sole source of right.

This discourse evokes the concept of 'coercive legitimacy', which attempts to justify the use of military force outside established legal frameworks. This is usually done under the pretext of protecting the global order or confronting unconventional threats, a logic that carries deep structural contradictions.

These trends raise a problematic question: How can the legal system be defended by violating its fundamental rules? The attempt to protect rules by suspending them leads to a dangerous slide towards what is called in international relations 'the permanent state of exception'.

Looking at historical experiences, we find that justifying force outside international legitimacy is not a new approach, but a recurring pattern that has proven to fail. Perhaps the military intervention in Iraq in 2003 remains the most prominent witness that transcending law does not achieve stability but exacerbates chaos.

Lessons learned from previous conflicts have confirmed that weakening international institutions leads to an erosion of trust in the global system as a whole. Instead of enhancing security, this behavior opens the door to the generalization of the logic of force, where every state will find a justification for adopting aggressive behaviors under the pretext of defending its security.

From a geopolitical analysis perspective, Ferry's discourse represents a retreat from the model of 'international governance' to the model of 'hard sovereignty'. In this model, powerful states seek to impose their unilateral will away from any regulatory controls or binding international charters.

There is a clear confusion in these theses between the level of realistic description and the level of theoretical justification. While it may be true that some states violate laws, this should not become a pretext for abolishing the legal rule itself or legitimizing its transgression.

The difference between rigorous analysis and ideological justification lies in the ability to distinguish between 'what is' and 'what ought to be'. Defending international law requires reforming and strengthening it from within, not demolishing its pillars on the pretext of its ineffectiveness at a certain point in time.

Luc Ferry's stance represents a shift in the structure of Western political thought, moving from the logic of legitimacy to the logic of pure power. This path may return the world to a pre-contractual stage, where common legal horizons are absent and military clashes control destinies.

In conclusion, the current challenge is not limited to confronting legal violations, but also to addressing discourses that legitimize these violations. The real danger lies in attempting to provide an intellectual and philosophical cover for violating the law in the name of protecting the law itself, which threatens global peace.

The greatest danger comes not from violating the law, but from justifying its violation in the name of the law itself.