What happens when states say they support international law but resist efforts to enforce it?
For Bryan Peeler, the way states argue about international law can reveal how the international system itself is changing.
Peeler, a U of M department of political science assistant professor, works “at the intersection of international law and international relations.” His broader research is focused on how international law constrains state power. Currently, he is researching how states use legal arguments to justify their actions, challenge other states and shape interpretations of international rules.
“The short version is that I study how states argue,” Peeler said.
One way Peeler does this is by examining BRICS states arguments within institutions such as the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
BRICS is an organization of 11 major emerging economies and developing countries of the world. Originally named after Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the group has since expanded, with members primarily cooperating on economic, political and development issues.
Peeler is studying these arguments in the context of the war in Ukraine.
Peeler described a pattern in this research as “enforcement-limiting legalism.” This refers to how states can support international rules while opposing the mechanisms available to enforce them.
In one of his recent articles, Peeler explored how BRICS states manage the tension between supporting the Charter’s rules and resisting their enforcement against Russia. His findings suggested that these states do not necessarily reject international law. Instead, they separate the rule from its remedy. They may affirm principles such as territorial integrity while arguing that sanctions, tribunals or Security Council action are illegitimate, selective or could escalate a conflict. “It’s a strategy that preserves the law’s language while hollowing out its teeth,” he said.
Peeler found that this strategy appears across both the Security Council and General Assembly. “The biggest threats to international law usually don’t announce themselves as lawbreaking,” he noted.
His interest in these questions began with a broader puzzle about why states comply with international law when there is no authority that can always force them to do so. Over time, his research shifted toward examining disagreements over what international rules mean.
The war in Ukraine sharpened that focus as Peeler observed states formally supporting the United Nations Charter while arguing against ways of enforcing it.
According to Peeler, the research has particular relevance for Canada. Peeler said Canada has relied heavily on a rules-based international order, while the institutions supporting that system are contested and can change.
“Middle powers don’t get to rely on raw capability. Rules and institutions are our terrain, so we should understand what’s happening to them,” he said.
Peeler expressed hope that his research would provide a clearer way to understand state behaviour that falls between following international law and openly rejecting it. “If a policymaker or an informed citizen can watch a Security Council debate and recognize the strategy being deployed, the work has done its job,” he highlighted.
For students interested in research, Peeler recommended working directly with primary sources, learning research methods early and following questions that genuinely interest them. He also emphasized that his own research benefits from collaboration with students.
