Kim Them Do
Abstract
The international environment has undergone profound changes. Developments such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Hamas attacks against Israel and the subsequent Israeli military operations in Gaza, and the ongoing tensions involving Iran have intensified debates about the effectiveness, legitimacy, and enforceability of international law. These developments have led many observers to question whether the authority of the international legal system is gradually being eroded.
Despite the current risk of systemic fragmentation, there remains broad recognition that international law is indispensable for managing global challenges and maintaining international stability. Its renewal, reform, and consistent application will be essential to preserving a functioning and effective international order in the decades ahead.
Meaningful reform is necessary. International institutions must adapt to changing distributions of power and respond more effectively to the concerns of developing countries and emerging powers. At the same time, constructing an entirely new international legal system is neither realistic nor desirable.
International law may appear weakened in the face of contemporary crises. Nevertheless, it remains deeply embedded in international institutions, diplomatic practice, economic relations, and public expectations. Its future is uncertain, but its continued relevance should not be underestimated.
The Erosion of the Existing International Order
The contemporary international legal system is facing challenges unprecedented in the post-1945 era. International law is founded on core principles, including the prohibition of the use of force, the prohibition of wars of aggression, and a collective security framework designed to maintain international peace and stability.
During the later decades of the Cold War, large-scale interstate wars were relatively uncommon. Nevertheless, numerous civil conflicts and counterterrorism operations took place, often supported covertly by external powers or justified through controversial interpretations of consent and intervention. Frequently cited examples include the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, U.S. involvement in Latin America during the 1980s and 1990s, and the 2003 U.S.- led invasion of Iraq, which many governments and legal scholars regard as inconsistent with international law.
In recent years, U.S. President Joe Biden has promoted the concept of a “rules-based international order.” China and Russia, however, have argued that the concept lacks a clear legal definition and extends beyond the established framework of international law. According to this interpretation, “rules” encompass the broader architecture of global governance, including soft-law instruments such as non-binding agreements, memoranda of understanding, and standards developed by multinational corporations and other non-state actors. By contrast, China and Russia emphasize a more traditional understanding of international law based on treaties and formally negotiated legal obligations.
The international environment has undergone profound changes. Developments such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Hamas attacks against Israel and the subsequent Israeli military operations in Gaza, and the ongoing tensions involving Iran have intensified debates about the effectiveness, legitimacy, and enforceability of international law. These developments have led many observers to question whether the authority of the international legal system is gradually being eroded.
Particularly concerning is the perception that some political leaders increasingly treat violations of international law as an unavoidable feature of contemporary international relations. Critics argue that responses to unlawful conduct are often selective and influenced by geopolitical considerations. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly questioned the value of certain international legal and institutional arrangements, while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has argued that the European Union cannot rely exclusively on international law to protect the international order from increasingly complex security challenges.
Against this backdrop, public opinion in many regions reflects growing concern that major powers tolerate violations of international law and increasingly view military force as a legitimate instrument of policy. Critics contend that when states minimize their own violations while condemning those of others, they undermine the credibility of the legal system they claim to uphold.
Countries across the Global South have emphasized the need to restore the effectiveness and legitimacy of international law through its consistent and universal application. They argue that non-Western states should play a more active role in shaping reform initiatives and strengthening international institutions. If successful, such efforts could reinforce the foundations of the international order, contribute to conflict resolution in regions such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Syria, and address human rights concerns in Afghanistan, China, Iran, Russia, and the occupied Palestinian territories.
Despite the current risk of systemic fragmentation, there remains broad recognition that international law is indispensable for managing global challenges and maintaining international stability. Its renewal, reform, and consistent application will be essential to preserving a functioning and effective international order in the decades ahead.
Why International Law Still Matters: The Necessity of International Law
International law exists to facilitate the peaceful coexistence of peoples and states by providing mechanisms for resolving disputes over territory, resources, political systems, ideologies, and other sources of conflict. In the contemporary era, it also serves as an essential framework for addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and transnational security threats, while promoting greater international justice through efforts to reduce inequalities between the Global North and the Global South.
Unlike domestic legal systems, the international community does not operate under a centralized authority capable of issuing binding commands to 193 sovereign states and a global population of more than eight billion people. There is no world government, no global parliament, no unified military or police force, and no international prison system. Intergovernmental organizations, transnational civil society networks, and multinational corporations likewise remain only partially—and often inconsistently—subject to international legal regulation.
As a result, international law possesses only limited enforcement capacity. Its effectiveness depends largely on the willingness of states and other actors to comply with legal obligations, as well as on considerations of legitimacy, reciprocity, reputation, and long-term self-interest.
Despite substantial disparities in power, wealth, and influence among states, the principle of sovereign equality remains a cornerstone of the international legal order. Luxembourg and the United States may differ dramatically in material capabilities, yet both are recognized as legally equal sovereign states. Each possesses one vote in the United Nations General Assembly and is bound by international treaties only to the extent that it has consented to them, except where customary international law or peremptory norms apply.
The COVID-19 pandemic provides a useful analogy for understanding the operation of law. Most individuals complied with public health measures not primarily because they feared punishment, but because they accepted the legitimacy and necessity of the rules. This illustrates a broader principle: the effectiveness of any legal system depends first and foremost on voluntary compliance, while coercive enforcement serves as a secondary and exceptional mechanism.
In international relations, however, voluntary compliance is often undermined by power asymmetries. Major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia frequently face limited practical consequences when they violate international obligations or exert pressure on weaker states. Consequently, fundamental principles such as non-intervention and the prohibition on the use of force often struggle to operate as intended, despite having been designed largely to protect weaker states from coercion by stronger ones.
Nevertheless, even the most powerful states benefit from a functioning international legal order. Predictability, stability, and mutually recognized rules reduce the likelihood of escalation, miscalculation, and costly conflict. International law lowers transaction costs, facilitates cooperation, and provides institutional channels through which disputes can be managed peacefully. These benefits can be sustained only when the processes through which international law is created, stabilized, and legitimized are respected.
In this sense, even great powers possess a strategic interest in preserving a legal order that constrains all actors, including themselves.
How International Law Functions: Formation, Stability and Legitimacy
Conditions for Formation
A fundamental prerequisite for the emergence of international law is the identification of legal subjects—entities recognized as possessing rights and obligations within the international community. Traditionally, sovereign states have been the primary subjects of international law, although international organizations also possess varying degrees of international legal personality.
Through established procedures and legal instruments, international law creates binding commitments among these subjects. The rules governing the negotiation, conclusion, ratification, amendment, interpretation, and termination of treaties constitute the basic infrastructure through which legal obligations are generated and maintained.
International law also provides institutional frameworks within which states can meet, negotiate, interpret, and revise their shared commitments. International organizations, diplomatic conferences, and multilateral forums create the procedural architecture necessary for cooperation and conflict management. This infrastructure is indispensable for peace-making and dispute resolution. Without it, there would be no structured negotiations regarding ceasefires in Gaza, no established framework for discussions concerning Iran’s nuclear program, and no legal or diplomatic mechanisms through which a future settlement of the war in Ukraine could be pursued.
The mere existence of legal rules, however, is not sufficient. For international law to function effectively over time, it must also satisfy the conditions necessary for stability and durability.
Conditions for Stability
International law contributes to conflict prevention by establishing norms that enable states to anticipate both the legality and likely consequences of proposed actions. These shared expectations foster long-term stability, which is an essential foundation for economic development and international cooperation. When tariffs change unpredictably, central bank policies fluctuate abruptly, borders open and close without warning, or visa and residency regulations shift erratically, uncertainty discourages investment, weakens cooperation, and impedes development. Ultimately, populations across nations bear the costs of such instability.
Beyond economics, confidence-building measures in international relations are equally important. When major powers demonstrate respect for the rule of law, they signal their willingness to act as reliable and predictable partners. This strengthens opportunities for cooperation and facilitates collective responses to global challenges, including terrorism, weapons proliferation, climate change, migration, pandemics, and supply-chain disruptions. No state can effectively address these transnational problems alone; international legal procedures provide the indispensable framework through which collective solutions can be pursued.
Treaty commitments also create a degree of institutional continuity. When a government ratifies an international agreement, it binds not only the current administration but, in principle, future governments as well. This contributes to legal stability and predictability. However, such stability is not absolute. The United States provides a notable example. During his first term, President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). President Joe Biden subsequently reversed that decision, while the second Trump administration later renewed the withdrawal process. This sequence illustrates how international legal procedures can be used to advance changing political priorities, potentially undermining the predictability that international agreements are intended to provide. Preserving stability therefore requires attention not only to the creation of legal commitments but also to their durability and legitimacy.
Conditions for Legitimacy
Stable legal rules alone are insufficient. For international law to influence behavior effectively, its norms must also be regarded as legitimate by the actors subject to them.
International law establishes normative standards through which the legality of state conduct can be assessed. These standards reflect not only technical legal rules, but also broader values shared within the international community. At the same time, international law is not static. Legal norms evolve alongside political, social, and cultural developments. Given the diversity of the international community, legal concepts are frequently formulated in flexible terms, allowing them to be interpreted and applied across different regional and cultural contexts.
States rarely justify their conduct by openly rejecting international law. Instead, they typically seek to demonstrate that their actions are consistent with existing legal norms. Contemporary conflicts frequently generate competing legal interpretations, with governments publishing official statements, legal memoranda, and diplomatic communications to defend their positions. These debates illustrate the continuing importance of international law as a framework for assessing and legitimizing state behavior, even when consensus regarding its interpretation is absent.
Mechanisms of Compliance: Retaliation, Reciprocity, Reputation, Internalization and Socialization
To encourage compliance, international law traditionally relies on three interrelated mechanisms, often described as the “three Rs”:
- Retaliation — lawful countermeasures adopted in response to violations of international obligations.
- Reciprocity — the expectation that compliance by one state will be matched by compliance by others.
- Reputation — the desire of states to preserve credibility, trustworthiness, and international standing.
Together, these mechanisms create incentives for lawful conduct and help reinforce the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international legal order.
Retaliation
Within international law, retaliation is most associated with sanctions and countermeasures. Under the United Nations Charter, only the Security Council may authorize the use of military enforcement measures. The five permanent members of the Security Council (P5)—the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—possess veto power over such decisions.
This arrangement creates a well-known structural dilemma. Permanent members accused of violating international law may prevent coercive action against themselves or their allies by exercising their veto. As a result, powerful states can, in practice, limit the effectiveness of collective enforcement mechanisms. Critics argue that this allows permanent members to function simultaneously as participants in disputes and as gatekeepers of accountability. Although reform proposals have been advanced, meaningful amendment of the Security Council’s voting structure remains politically difficult because Charter amendments themselves require the consent of the permanent members.
One proposal receiving increased attention has been promoted by Liechtenstein. It emphasizes a stricter interpretation of Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, which requires a state that is a party to a dispute to abstain from voting in certain circumstances. If applied more rigorously, this provision could modestly reduce opportunities for conflicts of interest within Security Council decision-making.
Unlike military enforcement measures, economic sanctions may be imposed unilaterally or collectively without Security Council authorization. Examples include sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union against Russia following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as sanctions directed at Iran in connection with concerns regarding its nuclear program. The effectiveness of such measures, however, often depends on the breadth of international participation and the economic significance of the states involved. Where major trading partners decline to participate, sanctions may have only limited impact.
For smaller states, economic sanctions can be particularly difficult to implement effectively. Measures imposed by states with limited economic influence may have little practical effect on larger economies and can sometimes generate unintended costs for the sanctioning state itself. For example, when Nicaragua imposed a trade embargo and an entry ban in Germany, Berlin was largely unaffected. This asymmetry further illustrates the challenges of enforcing international law in a system characterized by significant disparities in power and resources.
In this context, litigation in international courts has become an important tool for vulnerable countries. In court, every country, large or small, enjoys equal rights to due process. For example, in 2024, Nicaragua sued Germany at the International Court of Justice, accusing Germany of supporting genocide through arms exports to Israel.
The two problems of power imbalances between states and the P5’s veto privilege have created two „classes“ in the international system:
- P5 in contrast to all the rest of the countries
- Economic powers in opposition to weak countries
In this context, only international courts and arbitration are the places where these two imbalances are partially nullified. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is also selective.
Reciprocity
The principle of reciprocity reflects mutual respect and constitutes a fundamental expectation in international relations. When a state complies with international law, it generally expects other states to act in a similar manner. Reciprocity therefore encourages cooperation by linking compliance to the anticipation of equivalent behavior by others.
However, reciprocity has important limits. In international humanitarian law, for example, reciprocal violations are expressly prohibited. During armed conflicts, the unlawful conduct of one party does not relieve its adversary of its own legal obligations. In the Gaza conflict, for instance, allegations have been made that Hamas violated international humanitarian law by using civilian populations and protected sites for military purposes. Even if such violations occur, Israel remains legally obligated to comply with international humanitarian law. The obligations imposed by the law of armed conflict apply independently to each party and cannot be suspended in response to an opponent’s misconduct.
Reciprocity is also less effective in the provision of global public goods. Climate protection illustrates this challenge. When Germany reduces carbon emissions, the resulting environmental benefits are shared globally, including by states that make little or no comparable effort. This dynamic creates incentives for free-riding and weakens reciprocal enforcement. Recognizing this problem, the German Federal Constitutional Court has emphasized that the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement depends on mutual trust among participating states that all parties will make good-faith efforts to fulfill their commitments. In an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment, maintaining such trust remains a significant challenge.
Reputation
The third traditional compliance mechanism is reputation. International law is not merely technical framework governing interstate relations; it also embodies widely shared aspirations, including peace, stability, and human welfare. As a result, states often seek to avoid reputational costs associated with violations of international norms.
Reputation plays a particularly important role in the international human rights system. Treaty-monitoring bodies, special rapporteurs, and peer-review mechanisms regularly assess state performance and issue recommendations. Although many of these recommendations are not legally binding, persistent disregard for them may damage a state’s international standing and credibility.
Participation in international institutions also serves as a means of enhancing prestige and influence. Vietnam provides a notable example. Over the past two decades, the country has significantly expanded its diplomatic profile through active engagement in multilateral institutions and balanced relations with major powers.
Vietnam has established or upgraded comprehensive strategic partnerships with numerous countries, including China, Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, the United States, Australia, and France. It has also served twice as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council:
- 2008–2009: elected with 183 of 190 votes.
- 2020–2021: elected with 192 of 193 votes, one of the strongest results in the Council’s history.
During its second term, Vietnam held the rotating presidency of the Security Council twice and simultaneously chaired ASEAN. It also hosted the 2019 U.S.–DPRK Summit. These achievements contributed to its reputation as an increasingly influential diplomatic actor.
Reputational effects can also operate in the opposite direction. During the 2023 election for the Eastern European seat on the Security Council for the 2024–2025 term, Belarus received only 38 votes, while Slovenia secured 153. Many observers interpreted this outcome as reflecting concerns among UN member states regarding Belarus’s close alignment with Russia during the war in Ukraine. Such outcomes demonstrate how reputational considerations can influence diplomatic support and international standing.
Beyond the traditional „Three Rs,“ international law also influences behavior through processes of internalization and sozialization. International norms often become embedded within domestic institutions and decision-making processes, encouraging governments, legislatures, courts, and civil society organizations to implement and enforce international standards at the national level.
Internalization of International Law
This dynamic is particularly evident in fields such as anti-corruption law, environmental protection, and the regulation of armed conflict. Civil society organizations frequently invoke international obligations to advocate legal reform, monitor government conduct, and promote policy change in the public interest.
Climate litigation provides a prominent contemporary example. Courts around the world increasingly rely on the Paris Agreement and scientific assessments produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when evaluating governmental climate policies. Through judicial interpretation and enforcement, international norms acquire practical significance within domestic legal systems.
The ratification of international human rights treaties can produce similar effects. Even when governments initially ratify treaties for symbolic or diplomatic reasons, treaty obligations often generate domestic political and legal pressures for reform.
Because human rights remain a prominent concern within international institutions and civil society networks, governments, legislatures, and courts are regularly called upon to address related issues. Japan’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), for example, contributed to the subsequent development of domestic legislation promoting gender equality.
The effectiveness of internalization, however, depends significantly on domestic political conditions. The mechanism tends to be strongest in democratic systems where courts, media organizations, and civil society actors possess sufficient autonomy to invoke international norms. In more authoritarian systems, opportunities for such mobilization may be substantially constrained by restrictions on political participation, civil society activity, and judicial independence.
Recent debates concerning migration, human rights, and international criminal justice in countries such as the United States, Russia, China, and Israel illustrate the limits of internalization when governments are unwilling to assume additional international obligations. Ultimately, international law remains most effective when states voluntarily accept and implement its norms through domestic institutions.
Socialization of International Law
A further mechanism promoting compliance is socialization. Compliance cannot be assessed solely through official government statements or formal legal commitments. It also depends on the extent to which international norms become embedded in everyday administrative practices, professional cultures, and societal expectations. When international legal principles are integrated into routine governance, states are more likely to comply with them consistently.
This process is evident in many multilateral treaties that require regular reporting, review, and consultation. Periodic reporting obligations create ongoing opportunities for monitoring, dialogue, and peer evaluation. Over time, these procedures help normalize compliance and encourage the adaptation of domestic laws and institutions to international standards.
Recent legislative and regulatory developments across numerous jurisdictions reflect this growing integration of international norms into domestic governance. Examples include:
- Gender equality requirements across public and private institutions.
- Carbon-emissions and sustainability assessments in construction and infrastructure projects.
- Corporate sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting obligations.
These developments illustrate how international and domestic law increasingly operate in tandem. By creating new administrative routines, professional expectations, and legal practices, socialization can promote compliance even in the absence of formal sanctions or coercive enforcement mechanisms.
Contemporary Challenges: Projection of Hegemony and Participation in Legal Discourse
Projection of Hegemony
The use of international law to advance the unilateral interests of powerful states represents one of the enduring tensions within the international legal order. When legal norms are perceived as instruments of domination rather than frameworks for cooperation, the legitimacy of international law may be weakened.
A good example is Trump’s creation of the „Board of Peace“ through an international treaty, which grants the organization legal status and international immunity. However, this initiative was not welcomed by the public because it goes against the goal of maintaining global peace of the United Nations. The U.S. has also signed a framework agreement with Ukraine but has not released details. According to leaked information, the content of this agreement is considered unequal and exploitative. Both cases show that international agreements are being used as a unilateral instrument of power to exercise hegemony.
Critics of the contemporary international order frequently point to instances in which international agreements, institutions, or legal doctrines appear to serve asymmetrical distributions of power. In such cases, legal arrangements may be viewed not as neutral mechanisms of governance but as tools through which dominant states pursue strategic, economic, or geopolitical objectives.
In its most controversial form, this phenomenon is often described as the „weaponization of law“ (or lawfare): the strategic use of legal arguments and institutions to advance political goals. Examples are frequently cited across different regions and political systems. Russia’s justification of the annexation of Crimea through references to humanitarian concerns and self-determination, for example, has been widely challenged by international lawyers who argue that the legal conditions for such claims were not met. Similar debates arise whenever states invoke legal doctrines selectively to justify contested actions.
During the period of U.S. predominance following the Cold War, American foreign policy was frequently presented as advancing democracy, human rights, and liberal internationalism. Critics, however, have argued that strategic interests—including security concerns, economic access, and geopolitical influence—often played an equally significant role. Similar critiques have been directed at other major powers, including China and Russia, whose international initiatives are likewise viewed by some observers as reflecting broader geopolitical ambitions.
As a result, skepticism has increasingly extended beyond individual states to encompass international institutions themselves. Organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are often criticized for reflecting unequal distributions of influence within the international system. Whether such critiques are justified remains contested, but they illustrate the broader challenge of maintaining the perceived neutrality and legitimacy of international institutions.
Participation in Legal Discourse
The existence of hypocrisy does not necessarily undermine international law; paradoxically, it may reinforce its significance.
Political leaders occasionally express skepticism toward human rights, international institutions, or legal constraints on state action. Such statements raise an important question: Is it preferable to maintain an imperfect legal order, or to abandon legal constraints altogether in favor of openly power-based politics?
Critics sometimes argue that international law is ineffective and therefore largely irrelevant. Defenders respond that imperfect law remains preferable to the absence of law. As the French moralist François de La Rochefoucauld famously observed, „Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.“
This insight has important implications for international law. Even when states invoke legal norms selectively or insincerely, they implicitly acknowledge the authority of those norms. Governments rarely justify their actions by rejecting international law outright. Instead, they typically seek to demonstrate that their conduct is consistent with existing legal principles.
Consequently, legal arguments remain an essential part of international political discourse. States that invoke legal justifications expose themselves to criticism from other governments, international institutions, scholars, courts, and civil society organizations. Both defenders and critics therefore become participants in a shared legal conversation.
This process creates what some scholars describe as a „discursive constraint.“ Even powerful states must engage with legal arguments and respond to legal criticism. In this sense, international law continues to function as a common language through which competing claims are debated and contested, even when compliance remains imperfect.
Outlook
The global distribution of power is undergoing significant transformation. Many analysts argue that the period of uncontested U.S. predominance that followed the Cold War has gradually given way to a more fragmented and multipolar international system. Economic growth in Asia, geopolitical competition among major powers, and the increasing influence of middle powers have all contributed to this shift.
Some observers predict the emergence of a world divided into competing geopolitical blocs centered on the United States, China, and Russia. Yet such a development faces important constraints. Contemporary international relations are characterized by deep economic interdependence, complex supply chains, and extensive institutional connections. Even major powers remain dependent upon cooperation with a wide range of partners.
Moreover, the prohibition on the use of force continues to impose significant legal, political, and economic costs on aggressive behavior. Although violations occur, outright territorial conquest remains comparatively rare in international politics and typically generates widespread diplomatic opposition and economic consequences.
Attempts to establish regional hegemony through military coercion are therefore unlikely to produce durable stability. Even where military superiority exists, long-term political control often proves difficult to sustain. Regional powers, neighboring states, and international actors retain significant capacity to resist and contest efforts at domination.
These developments raise a fundamental question: should the existing international legal order be preserved, reformed, or replaced?
Many governments in the Global South advocate substantial reform. They argue that contemporary institutions do not adequately reflect current distributions of power and frequently fail to address the priorities of developing countries. Calls for reform often focus on issues such as Security Council representation, global economic governance, development financing, and the equitable application of international law.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that most states do not routinely resort to military aggression. Although violations of the prohibition on the use of force continue to occur, they remain exceptions rather than the norm. Significantly, even states accused of violating international law rarely challenge the legitimacy of the prohibition itself. Instead, they generally attempt to justify their conduct within the existing legal framework.
This phenomenon has sometimes been described as „organized hypocrisy.“ Yet it also reflects the enduring strength of international norms. States continue to recognize the political and moral authority of legal principles, even when their conduct falls short of those standards.
Historical experience suggests that condemnation of violations, diplomatic pressure, legal criticism, and economic sanctions can contribute to preserving international norms over time. Although these mechanisms do not guarantee compliance, they help sustain the expectation that the use of force should remain constrained by law.
Conclusion
The international legal order is entering a period of profound uncertainty. Whether it can effectively address emerging challenges—including geopolitical rivalry, climate change, technological transformation, migration, and economic fragmentation—remains an open question. Yet despite repeated predictions of its decline, international law continues to function as an indispensable framework for managing international relations.
Meaningful reform is necessary. International institutions must adapt to changing distributions of power and respond more effectively to the concerns of developing countries and emerging powers. At the same time, constructing an entirely new international legal system is neither realistic nor desirable. The more practical approach is to reform and strengthen existing institutions while preserving the foundational principles that have contributed to international stability since 1945.
The history of international law demonstrates a remarkable capacity for adaptation. Although often criticized as ineffective, inconsistent, or overly complex, it has repeatedly evolved in response to changing political realities.
International law may appear weakened in the face of contemporary crises. Nevertheless, it remains deeply embedded in international institutions, diplomatic practice, economic relations, and public expectations. Its future is uncertain, but its continued relevance should not be underestimated.
