Hermer was a junior to Starmer in Doughty Street Chambers and his speech's theme of "progressive realism" is the title of Lammy's substack https://davidlammy.substack.com/p/the-locarno-speech He was using RUSI to make a party political speech.
But it was also an admission that Britain, unlike Putin's Russia or any other Great Power, cannot break international law without severe consequences to its national interests.
Academically, Hermer confuses law with diplomacy, and, where he is criticising the last government, law with statesmen going through the messy process of trying to make rational, national and instrumental policy. Would John Mearsheimer or any other academic from the Realist School disagree with him? No. JJM would merely point out that Hermer's "rules-based international order" is what the weak have no choice but to accept.
Even with the party political redactions, it names prominent Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt four times in the context of discussing former government policy which he says was modelled on Schmittian Political Realism. I wonder how the AG would fare in debate with John Mearsheimer?!
A lifetime study of history and a 30 year career as a Foreign Service Officer left me with the awareness that "International Law" is subject to the vagaries of human behavior even more than national (especially common law founded) legal systems. But even more than national law (thought the GOP maybe about to prove me wrong on that) international law is heavily influenced my 'who has the gold/guns' and gets to make the rules.
Well said. I could write more words, but then we’d get into a political discussion, because I don’t think such ideas come from nowhere. So I’ll start with your good write up.
Hermer was a junior to Starmer in Doughty Street Chambers and his speech's theme of "progressive realism" is the title of Lammy's substack https://davidlammy.substack.com/p/the-locarno-speech He was using RUSI to make a party political speech.
But it was also an admission that Britain, unlike Putin's Russia or any other Great Power, cannot break international law without severe consequences to its national interests.
Academically, Hermer confuses law with diplomacy, and, where he is criticising the last government, law with statesmen going through the messy process of trying to make rational, national and instrumental policy. Would John Mearsheimer or any other academic from the Realist School disagree with him? No. JJM would merely point out that Hermer's "rules-based international order" is what the weak have no choice but to accept.
Those Whom The Gods Wish To Destroy They Give Us... The Lord Hermer.
How can the UK be reduced to this?
Re-reading Hermer's RUSI speech, it's not just silly, it's malevolent, smearing not just His Majesty's Loyal Opposition but the King's previous and Queen Elizabeth's last government with Nazism https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/attorney-generals-2025-rusi-annual-security-lecture
Even with the party political redactions, it names prominent Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt four times in the context of discussing former government policy which he says was modelled on Schmittian Political Realism. I wonder how the AG would fare in debate with John Mearsheimer?!
A lifetime study of history and a 30 year career as a Foreign Service Officer left me with the awareness that "International Law" is subject to the vagaries of human behavior even more than national (especially common law founded) legal systems. But even more than national law (thought the GOP maybe about to prove me wrong on that) international law is heavily influenced my 'who has the gold/guns' and gets to make the rules.
Well said. I could write more words, but then we’d get into a political discussion, because I don’t think such ideas come from nowhere. So I’ll start with your good write up.