Institutionalised standards of collective justice are central to assessing fairness in international practices. Institutions such as the UN Security Council, the World Trade Organization, and others play an important role in moral assessment through the provisions of international standards, such as the prohibition of trade-distorting practices. Not only international institutions, but countries’ own values, such as India’s Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, are thought to aid in maintaining fairness in relations.
However, a big challenge in international relations is making one’s interests and actions consistent with the values they profess. While most countries pledge their commitment to non- interference and peaceful conduct of foreign policy, in reality, their national interests are defined in realist terms that hurtle them down the path of power maximisation and pit them against their co- aspirants.
Reasons for not adhering to fairness in international relations:

• Sense of insecurity: Balance-of-power politics around the world, born out of mutual distrust and a sense of insecurity, make it often difficult for nations to strictly adhere to values they profess. For example, countries’ pursuit of nuclear power in spite of their commitment to non-violence and peace.
• Just war theory: While countries often stay out of war to prevent loss of life and property, the decision to involve themselves in war during inevitable situations is often judged by the fairness of the action. For example, U.S decision to deploy nuclear bomb on Japan during World War II.
• Regional supremacy aspirations: Aspirations for regional supremacy and protecting one’s own economy by deviating the rival is often a common practice countries adopt. For example, China’s encouragement to Pakistan in terms of arms funding and helping to veto against the international sanctions despite knowing the threat it poses to India.
• Colonial hangover: While the non-interference and territorial sovereignty is at the centre stage of the global diplomacy, countries meddle with the foreign nation’s internal matters. For example, Britain Parliament discussion over abrogation of Article 370 in India.
• Distributive justice: Instead of taking responsibility over climate change mitigation practices, developed countries, which are majorly responsible for the current climate change, are not ready for an equitable contribution.
• Self-interest: Countries often look after the demands and needs of their own citizens, which come in contrast to international standards. For instance, global carbon control mechanisms do not approve of India’s industrial growth aspirations fuelled by fossil fuels.

With the looming crises of terrorism, climate induced migration, rising inequality after the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economic crisis, etc., it is important to resort to moral practises in international relations.