The Hour of International Law

In October of last year, Brazil and Mexico took the initiative, with the support of other Member States, to launch the Voluntary Group in Support of the Inter-American Juridical Committee and the Promotion of International Law (GAJUR). The aim was to bring together countries committed to further strengthening international law and to enhancing the visibility of the work of the Inter-American Juridical Committee (CJI in its acronym in Spanish and Portuguese), the OAS’s principal legal body, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro. Pursuant to Article 99 of the OAS Charter, the IJC serves as the Organization’s advisory body on juridical matters and promotes the progressive development and codification of international law.

In less than a year, GAJUR has facilitated two meetings between Member States and the jurists serving on the CJI, organized conferences and roundtables on international law, and compiled proposals aimed at ensuring continuity in these efforts. These initiatives include the convening of high-level events, the strengthening of the Rio de Janeiro Course on International Law, the expansion of the activities of the Secretariat for Legal Affairs, and the systematic follow-up of mandates adopted by OAS Member States at the General Assembly.

In our view, three principal considerations justify this initiative. First, at a time when international law is increasingly questioned and challenged, it is essential to recognize what is lost when its foundational principles are eroded. Second, we believe that disseminating the achievements, benefits, and contributions of institutions such as the CJI helps demonstrate that international law is far more useful, effective, and relevant to the daily life of States than is often assumed. Finally, international law is both a product and a driver of cooperation among nations–a prerequisite for addressing the challenges of our time effectively.

What is lost when international law is weakened? The answer is straightforward: the fundamental norms that govern coexistence among nations. International law, as it has evolved over the past eighty years, has not eliminated the realities of power, but it has succeeded in imposing constraints on the unrestricted use of force, thereby delegitimizing the notion that might makes right. The OAS, heir to the Pan-American conferences of the late nineteenth century, played a significant role in consolidating principles such as the peaceful settlement of disputes, the sovereign equality of States, and non-intervention. Violations of these principles are not merely unlawful; they also undermine any credible conception of a stable, rational, and just regional order.

The history of the CJI–which contributed to the drafting of the OAS Charter, international human rights instruments, and the Inter-American Democratic Charter–provides tangible evidence that international law is not an abstraction. Whether in the sphere of public or private international law, the work of the CJI and the negotiations among OAS Member States that led to the adoption of conventions, treaties, and other legal instruments, both binding and non-binding, have had–and continue to have–a positive impact.

These instruments have facilitated trade and investment, strengthened the protection of human rights, contributed to the fight against transnational organized crime and corruption, and promoted democratic consolidation, among many other advances. The Treaty of Tlatelolco stands out as one of the most significant examples of the capacity of Latin American and Caribbean States to build, through international law and multilateral negotiation, a pioneering legal regime for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

It is impossible to dissociate international law from multilateral institutions, whose very existence depends–as in the case of the OAS–on a charter that is itself an international treaty. Strengthening international law as an instrument for addressing common challenges through cooperation therefore also requires reinforcing the relevance of multilateral institutions. This entails ensuring that they remain representative, legitimate, and effective; that they do not succumb to the dynamics of economic, political, or military power; and that they do not lend legitimacy to forms of unilateralism that threaten to return the world to a Hobbesian state of nature. Only under such conditions can we hope to confront the challenges of development, combat climate change, protect and promote human rights, and strengthen democracy and security with any prospect of success.

Today, more than ever, this is no time for defeatism. The challenges confronting international law are indeed formidable, but history is neither teleological nor predetermined. Our efforts within the OAS are directed toward preserving the fundamental principles that underpin the Organization, while ensuring that its political bodies act with balance and legitimacy, thereby reducing the risk of a regional order based on the unrestrained exercise of power, devoid of checks, constraints, or accountability. Such an outcome would be detrimental to all, without exception, including those who may believe they stand to gain from it in the short term. Without the architecture of multilateral institutions and without the binding force of international law as its cement, the result will not merely be greater instability; it will amount to a genuine civilizational regression. That is what is at stake.

Submitted: July 15, 2026

Accepted for publication: July 16, 2026

Copyright © 2026 CEBRI-Journal. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited.