The diplomatic chess game between Russia and the United States over intervention in Syria has put into question the role and force of international law and practice. The situation reveals the anarchic state of international relations, which is geared to competing powerful interests who disregard international law.

According to the neo-realist perspective, international law has no significant role. Because binding law requires a centralized power capable of enforcing it and there being no such power in international affairs, international law doesn’t bind. As Thomas Hobbes says, “Covenants without the sword are but words.” This would help President Obama’s position as against Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been assuming that international law is binding. The US. would at least have no legal obligation not to use force in order to uphold a norm against the use of chemical weapons.

If on the other hand the neo-realists are wrong and international law does bind without a Hobbesian sovereign, then President Putin might be correct in asserting that force is illegal without UN Security Council authorization.

Perhaps Putin takes too narrow of a legal view that force is illegal without UN Security Council authorization — which he of course is standing in the way of with veto threats — except in cases of self-defense. And therefore, the veto powers of the Security Council are of questionable legitimacy in the first place. In short, force in Syria is justifiable on legal grounds, especially because the chemical weapons ban has become sufficiently well incorporated to treaty and customary law.

Although U.S.-backed intervention in Syria may be legal, the U.S. and Russia are neither legally nor morally motivated in their actions. Each nation is motivated by the balance of power politics as each tries to uphold its own idea of regional stability. In other words, they are motivated by a mere contest of power and self-interest.

Russia and the U.S. will therefore both either follow or break international law when convenient — whatever works to expand their national interests. For the U.S., it is based on sending a message to archenemy Iran. For Russia, it is about maintaining an ally in the region. Whether or not this actually helps the Syrians is a question mostly neglected in this game. This is why the Obama administration did not intervene in Syria before the red line on chemical weapons was crossed, even though over a hundred thousand people had already been killed.

So the powerful parties do not apply international law in good faith, and we should not put a lot of weight on their — largely self-serving — interpretations of it. But there are also deeper implications. The authority of international law itself becomes undermined because the law and practice are highly sensitive to the views and motives of its current powerful practitioners. Therefore when the practitioners think differently than their previous counterparts, the whole meaning of the practice changes, along with any reasons states had for compliance. In order to justify action in Syria, one must not only rely on legal justifications, but also seriously analyze the consequences for Syrians and weigh in other moral considerations. In the long run, perhaps we need a radical restructuring of power structures with new legal frameworks.

Edward Radzivilovskiy is a deputy opinion editor. Email him at [email protected].