Vanderbilt Law’s International Legal Studies Program (ILSP) welcomed Paul Reichler for a fireside chat with ILSP Director Michael Newton. Reichler is a globally esteemed lawyer who represents sovereign states before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals. He reflected on his career in public international law and the importance of maintaining a rules-based global order.
The Value of a Rules-Based International Order
There is significant long-term value in upholding a rules-based order, Reichler argued, despite the inherently conservative nature of international law that often reflects the interests of the most powerful actors. He explained how a rules-based system is particularly important for smaller nations that depend on structured legal avenues to protect themselves against more dominant neighbors.
“When you accept being part of that system, you accept some constraints upon your own behavior—that is, the need to follow the rules, even though, in a particular instance, you’d like the freedom to act regardless of them—in return for everybody else following those rules,” he explained. “You feel that your interests in the long run are better preserved, better achieved by having a system of rules that everybody else, for the most part, follows.”
A Career of International Litigation and Human Rights Advocacy
Reichler reflected on the enduring value of international rules and expectations, illustrating their impact in landmark cases throughout his career. In the 1980s, he represented Nicaragua in a dispute against the United States, challenging U.S.-supported paramilitary actions aimed at overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. The ICJ ultimately found the U.S. in violation of international law.
More recently, Reichler worked on the ongoing Guyana v. Venezuela dispute involving territorial claims, as well as advisory proceedings concerning Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. He represented Mauritius in its decades-long struggle to regain sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which had been separated from the colony before its 1968 independence and leased to the U.S. and U.K. for military purposes. Through a combination of advisory opinions and negotiations, he said his team’s work ultimately helped restore Mauritian sovereignty over the islands in 2025. “Although [advisory opinions] don’t result in binding judgments against a state, they constitute authoritative statements of international law,” he noted.
He also touched on the central role that human rights have played throughout his career. “Commitment to human rights justice is what has motivated me throughout my career,” he explained. “It’s why I became a lawyer.” He recalled his work in Georgia during the 2008 Russian invasion, when Russian forces sought to separate two Georgian provinces and displace ethnic Georgian populations. Reichler and his team brought the case to the ICJ, arguing that Russia had violated the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. He also highlighted the ICJ case of Gambia v. Myanmar, addressing the military-led campaign against the minority Rohingya Muslim population. Despite Gambia’s geographic distance from Myanmar, he noted that the Genocide Convention permits any state party to bring a case against another committing genocide.
“Injustice will always be there,” Reichler remarked. “You can only do so much, and it can be very, very frustrating, but the nobility is in the struggle. …You have to do it in a way where you’re talking about the law and the facts and presenting the human element, but not as if you’re trying to win on sympathy.”
Reichler emphasized the significance of teamwork, crediting early mentorship experiences for shaping his approach to litigation.
“I’m very fortunate,” he said. “When I was younger and starting out, I was a junior member of teams with some very experienced, very talented international lawyers. They were experienced in arguing, and they were also committed to international law, to the rule of law. They had a reverence for the court, and I’ve kind of inherited that.”
Newton concurred, adding, “We just try to be the very best lawyers we can be in a particular situation, but tempered with the moral judgment and the character to do what’s right.”
“You’re all going to have these crystallizing moments in your career—whether it’s an appellate brief, whether it’s an argument to the Supreme Court, whether it’s an argument in night traffic court—where you stand up and you are the law. You are the person who’s both totally prepared but also totally committed. That never happens just by yourself. It never happens without the support of a team.”