I've been increasingly concerned with how international law has been sidelined as a potential solution to global, international problems, AI safety being one of them.

In the past few years, various governments in western countries have shifted the Overton window on international law, making it seem irrelevant or useless. Researchers have now accepted this shift without challenging it, in a dangerous and negligent manner. 

A decade ago, it would have been unthinkable to call the UN "useless" or "irrelevant." Now that's a common sentiment, even among senior researchers in AI safety.

Researchers at Oxford University for example, present the prototypical case. Many were researching law and international law solutions for decades, but in the last decade, many have pivoted to focusing exclusively on technical AI governance, almost as if their legal background doesn't exist. This is merely an observation of published papers from the leading institutes. I am not intending to be rude to individuals, just pointing out the very clear trend lines.

Why international law matters

The current miopic view of the UN and international law is false, ahistorical and dangerous because it sidelines one of the most effective tools in human history.

International law is a major cause of peace

To refute the "UN bad" sentiment, it's important to understand the context to truly get what the UN has achieved. Prior to WW2, Western European countries were at war on and off for hundreds of years, with it rarely being more than a few years between wars.

In WW1, Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea of the League of Nations, a place for countries to meet to resolve disputes. It ultimately failed in part because it did not include Germany. (The lesson being that everyone needed a seat at the table).

After WW2, the UN was created and a flurry of international agreements, laying the foundation for our modern world, on everything from borders and trade to human rights, airline safety etc.

Since the end of WW2, there have been eighty years of peace in western Europe. This coincides with the founding of the UN.

Contrary to popular belief, the reason for peace in Europe for the last eighty years was not the threat of nuclear weapons. (Only two European countries have them, so the other 36 could've easily invaded each other). 

Instead, the solution appears three pronged: (1) economic codependency, (2) pseudo-federalisation, and (3) free movement of people. All of these rely upon international agreements and international law. The UN is obviously also a stopgap to help countries resolve disputes diplomatically.

International law prevented the last great risk

There is no question that nuclear armageddon was averted due to international agreements, disarmament agreements and international inspectors. No one debates this point. Historians broadly agree on it and most textbooks say this too.

At the same time, when international law is brought up today it's seen as feckless, ineffective and impossible. As if it has never achieved anything and could never achieved anything.

These two points cannot coexist. If international law prevented nuclear armageddon, then it must be very powerful and an effective tool.

The reconciliation seems clear: a sustained effort has been made to weaken international law, defund the UN and to shift the Overton window in the public consciousness. 

This effort has largely succeeded. It has gotten so bad that even senior law professors now openly endorse the "UN is useless" view, seemingly becoming ahistorical. Many have shifted to technical research despite not having any technical background, seemingly in the belief that only code can save us now.

It is equally important to recognise that the opposite is true. History has not ended. International law and institutions can be strengthened again, refunded, rebuilt and reimagined for the new world, and the Overton window can shift back to how it was.

Our current view is simply way too negative given the history. International law literally emerged out of global conflict, many of the countries that were at war back then are now firm allies, and the solutions to common global problems which seemed impossible were solved relatively simply. 

I feel like losing hope is the first part of losing perspective.