Today, we live in a deeply conflicted international order. Although international law was designed to regulate relations among states, there exists no overarching authority beyond the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), itself a product of the post–Second World War settlement and composed of states pursuing their own interests.

The Council’s structure, particularly its veto power, effectively enables states to prioritise their self-interest over collective action. History shows many instances of inaction due to vetoes blocking initiatives that oppose national interests, such as in resolutions on Ukraine and Gaza. However, it becomes much easier to reach a consensus when an issue threatens their common interests.

We are witnessing a shift to realism and to a notion of self-interest defined as the need to balance power in the international order against other states competing for dominance within it. Mansbridge, J. et al., in “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy”, offer an interesting insight into this deliberative process.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has been a crucial factor in the acceleration and a shift in the international order. The liberal period that dominated the international order following the collapse of the Soviet Union is now effectively over.

At the same time, Iran has persisted in advancing its nuclear ambitions and supporting regional proxies; the emergence of terrorist threats such as ISIS, Russia’s backing of the Assad regime, which has been driven by its strategic interest in maintaining Mediterranean bases and Libya, which remains mired in a conflict of its own complexity, coupled by other several other active conflicts that continue to challenge the established norms of international law.

Against this backdrop, the US withdrawal from some international organisations, though debatable, has sped up this realist shift, strengthening a world order based on power rather than rules. In reality, these dynamics have long been present, especially when the interests of dominant states are involved.

This article is not intended to question the primacy of international law, which remains indisputable, but rather to examine Malta’s position within this increasingly conflicted international system. Malta’s foreign policy has been criticised for failing to articulate clear public positions on issues such as Venezuela and Greenland. Yet foreign policy is not about having the loudest voice. It is about the careful transmission of messages through diplomatic channels, where discreet engagement can often yield more effective outcomes, especially when conveyed by states perceived as credible and free from hidden agendas.

Notably absent from much of the recent arguments is a clear definition of what constitutes Malta’s self-interest and how it should be safeguarded in such a conflicted order. While some argue that the erosion of international law in itself poses a direct risk to our country, Malta did, in fact, join the European Union’s statement on Venezuela, recognising that our voice carries greater weight when expressed collectively through the EU. Foreign policy, by its nature, requires continuous deliberation. In a democracy such as ours, this involves striking a balance between what academics describe as idealism, widely accepted as the aspiration in an ideal world, and principled pragmatism, which prioritises the protection of Malta’s national interests, particularly in light of our sensitive geostrategic position. This tension between values and interests is also intrinsic to the European Union, which ultimately reflects the collective will of its Member States.

Malta’s foreign policy is firmly grounded in the promotion of international law. However, the government also bears a moral obligation to safeguard national interests, based on rigorous assessments by its diplomatic corps. In such matters, there is little margin for error: decisions must be carefully calibrated, as the consequences of miscalculation can be severe. National self-interest is a broad concept encompassing economic stability, defence, social cohesion, connectivity, energy security, and other critical pillars of statehood. Any foreign policy decision must therefore account for this comprehensive calculus.

This is the essence of effective foreign policy, one founded on values and principles yet capable of navigating the space between idealism and pragmatism to safeguard the nation. In the end, governments are elected to serve their people’s interests first and foremost.