Canada’s UN envoy touts primacy of global law as advocates say Ottawa pulling punches

OTTAWA — Canada is putting international law as one of its top priorities at the United Nations — as others accuse Ottawa of pulling its punches.

Canada’s UN ambassador David Lametti says international rules are “under strain” by major and regional powers, and that Ottawa is alarmed by countries killing civilians, aid workers and UN staff.

“I don’t think anyone’s attacking humanitarian law,” he told The Canadian Press in a recent interview. “They’re not being attacked directly, they’re being undermined indirectly. And so it is the task of the rest of us to call that out, and to keep that international legal order alive.”

Lametti said he and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand are both former law professors who want to advance defending and shaping global rules — which are particularly important for protecting countries that aren’t superpowers.

“It’s a crying need, and Canada’s particularly good at it,” Lametti said.

“I am not unrealistic; I see what’s happening in the world. But I do think that, for example, a number of middle powers can band together and put humanitarian law in the forefront.”

Lametti said this is being done in concert with middle powers through formal declarations and statements at UN forums as well as “talk in the corridors of banding together, organizing, but also making clear that we disagree with certain things that are happening on the ground.”

Lametti’s comments come after sustained criticism from human rights activists, legal scholars and former federal ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock, arguing Ottawa isn’t doing enough to stand up for international law.

“You don’t have to grandstand, but you can certainly defend your end of the of the ring, and that I think we’re not doing enough,” said Sabine Nolke, a former senior Canadian diplomat whose career focused on international law.

Nolke said she’s puzzled by Lametti’s suggestion that international law isn’t under attack, citing a series of examples.

“It is absolutely under attack from a number of quarters, including some unexpected ones,” said Nolke, who represented Canada at The Hague as ambassador.

She said this includes the Chinese delegation at UNESCO pushing for less obligatory language around human rights, and then advocating for the same in other UN forums.

She also said the U.S. has flip-flopped between the two Trump administrations and that of Joe Biden on upholding global rules.

Advocates have argued the Carney government has held back on direct criticism of U.S. Donald Trump, who brushed aside international law in a January interview, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a brazen military raid.

That month, Anand said her government’s approach to human rights and international law shouldn’t be compared to that of her predecessors, because Canada faces “markedly different” threats than in any other era.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has rejected “stupid rules of engagement” that Nolke noted are based on centuries of international law and obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

“There is a fairly concerted strategy through the language of discourse and decision-making in international fora, to roll back the level obligation that states have agreed to through binding international treaties,” Nolke said.

She said Canadians should be particularly concerned about Hegseth’s statements because of how many Canadian soldiers work alongside American forces.

Similarly, Canada should have spoken out when the U.S. bombed a school in Iran, Nolke said, apparently because it was operating on outdated information.

“Law doesn’t just protect nuns, it protects criminals as well. And if we want to speak about the rule of law, then the rule applies equally — not just to the people we like,” she said.

Advocates have been particularly alarmed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response to the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran. At the start of the war in February, Carney broke with most European allies by unequivocally supporting American strikes.

He later said the war seemed “inconsistent with international law” but more recently has said the war was “worth it” to reduce nuclear threats.

In the interview, Lametti said international law has “normative weight” because countries still claim to follow it.

“There is a resiliency in international law and international humanitarian law that’s demonstrated by the fact that even when there appears to be a flagrant transgression, the transgressor will often — virtually always actually — try to frame the action in legal terms,” he said.

Lametti gave the example of invoking UN rules around naval navigation to justify military action to open the Strait of Hormuz.

“That doesn’t mean the justification is right, but there’s always an attempt to justify things in terms of international law. I think that demonstrates that there is still a great deal of currency there,” he said.

Nolke said Canada should instead focus on calling out violations.

“You don’t sit back and say ‘yeah, well, they still mention IHL and therefore it still exists.’ No, you must stand up for it. I mean, a law is not useful when it is not being enforced,” she said.

Nolke argues cabinet ministers have missed chances to directly call out violations of international law when asked by reporters. Ottawa can also join multi-country statements calling out clear violations of international law, she said.

She gave the example of two decades ago when Canada publicly objected to Saudi Arabia trying to exempt cultural practices from a UN convention on discrimination against women.

Nolke said Ottawa’s concerns about upsetting Trump can be managed, such as by issuing more joint declarations with middle powers.

“You can make your point but still stay on the tight wire. And that is something that we’re not doing enough of at this point,” Nolke said.

“I wish (diplomats) would be called on more frequently to craft statements that will make our position clear without stepping on anybody’s feet. I mean, that’s what diplomacy is all about.”

Nolke said that if Ottawa doesn’t change course, it risks being seen as lax on international law. That could leave Ottawa struggling to get other countries to stand up for Canada “if Trump decides he wants our water” and starts coercive activity to take freshwater resources.

“If we don’t protect the rule of law vis-a-vis more vulnerable states, what happens to us?” she asked.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 9, 2026.

Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press