Populism, Postcolonial States and the Contestation of International Legal Authority

This paper examines how populist movements in postcolonial states challenge the authority of international legal institutions, focusing on the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte and Indonesia under Joko Widodo. It argues that these leaders do not reject international law outright but strategically reframe it as a neocolonial imposition incompatible with sovereignty and self-determination. Using a framework informed by populism theory, Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), and legitimacy theory, the study identifies three modes of contestation—rhetorical, institutional, and doctrinal. Duterte pursued open confrontation through anti-ICC rhetoric and treaty withdrawal, while Jokowi adopted subtler disengagement by privileging ASEAN mechanisms and national priorities over global norms. The comparative analysis shows that neither case fully delegitimizes international law; instead, both erode its universality and recast its authority as conditional on domestic and postcolonial narratives of justice. These findings highlight the need for international legal institutions to adapt to plural sovereignties and historically grounded claims of legitimacy.