Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, has characterized the modern world justice system as increasingly out of step with current realities. In a recent report, he argued that the international framework meant to uphold accountability and legal norms no longer satisfies the needs of today’s geopolitical landscape, suggesting that its relevance is waning in practice for large parts of the world. He proposed that shifts in power, influence, and international practice have altered how states view legal mechanisms on the global stage, and that rethinking the architecture of international dispute resolution is unavoidable if the system is to remain meaningful for countries facing rapid political change.
From his perspective, the norms that guide international relations, including principles of international law, the UN Charter, and existing conventions, are increasingly tested by real-world pressures. He claimed that the enforcement patterns associated with these norms often appear biased toward a select circle of states, leaving others feeling marginalized and compelled to seek paths outside the traditional legal order. In his view, the aim of the current system is sometimes read as a means to suppress attempts by some governments to operate outside what he describes as Western-led templates, thereby forcing a conformity that may not reflect diverse national experiences or strategic interests.
Medvedev also asserted that major regional courts and tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights and other international judicial bodies, have lost their perceived appeal and effectiveness in the eyes of many states. He warned that inaugurating a new, all-encompassing world judiciary would encounter substantial contradictions and obstacles, making such a project difficult to realize in the near term. His analysis points to deep-seated tensions over jurisdiction, legitimacy, and the competing interests of powerful states, which he believes impede the creation of a universally accepted legal framework for global governance.
On the political front, he criticized Western rhetoric about Moscow’s actions and accused the West of continuing to arm the Ukrainian political regime. The point he makes is that Western powers publicly denounce Russian involvement while simultaneously supporting a military and political infrastructure around Kyiv, illustrating what he sees as a double standard in international discourse and policy practice. This critique highlights a broader debate about neutrality, influence, and the role of external actors in regional conflicts, challenging the integrity of public statements issued by Western governments when those statements intersect with strategic interests and security concerns in the region.
Earlier remarks posted on his social messaging channel were interpreted by observers as a provocative comparison involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although those words did not name the Ukrainian leader directly, they were widely understood as commentary on Zelensky’s position and statements about Russian politicians. The episode sparked heated discussion about how high-ranking officials frame political discourse and how such rhetoric is received across international audiences, underscoring the sensitivity and potential repercussions of public remarks by senior policymakers during tense geopolitical moments.