Words without teeth

A few years ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told a joke in Parliament, satirising the previous government's fondness for rights-based legislation. Two friends drove into the jungle to hunt a tiger. At some point, they decided to stretch their legs and take a walk before reaching tiger territory. They got out of their vehicle and were strolling around when they suddenly found themselves face-to-face with a tiger. Now, they had left their guns in the vehicle. One of them had a bright idea. He pulled out his gun licence from his pocket and showed it to the tiger. See, I have a licence. The joke works because we all understand, instinctively, that a piece of paper has no power over a tiger. The tiger does not care about your legal rights. The tiger will do what tigers do. The world has been talking a great deal about International Law lately. The American actions in Venezuela and the threats regarding Greenland have provoked an outpouring of commentary about sovereignty, the UN Charter and the rules-based international order. Legal scholars have written learned articles. Governments have issued stern statements. Social media is awash with righteous indignation about violations of established norms. Suggested read: Simple rules to help you navigate shaky markets I find myself in complete agreement with the substance of these arguments. The principles being cited are sound. The legal frameworks being invoked are legitimate. And yet, I cannot help feeling that much of this commentary fundamental