Leadership in a polarised political environment: The case for principled pragmatism

In 1966, my third year at Melbourne Law School, I went to my first lecture on International Law, the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I was hooked.

In the Second World War my father had been a British tank commander in North Africa and my mother was in the Women’s Royal Navy. My world was to be very different from theirs; one of optimism, opportunity and humanism. The international rule of law would bring global peace and justice and an end to discrimination and inequality. What could possibly go wrong?

Eighty years after the United Nations Charter was signed, the then Pope, Francis, when asked about the risk of a third world war, observed that ‘a third world war fought piecemeal’ is already underway. He had good reason. War, violence, poverty and famine are igniting across the globe, forcing people from their homes in unprecedented numbers and killing hundreds of thousands.

At the time of writing, the UN Refugee Agency estimates 123 million refugees are seeking international protection and hundreds of millions of migrants are pursuing better lives in wealthier, democratic countries. More than 12 million Sudanese have been displaced, three million to Chad, Egypt, and the Central African Republic (CAR). More than a million Rohingya have found a measure of protection in Bangladesh. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced 8.3 million refugees to Poland and Moldovia and on to Europe. The UN estimates that 1.9 million people have been displaced in Gaza. There have also been thousands of deaths across the world due to war and conflict.

Armed conflict is the norm in many parts of Africa, and gang warfare in North Central America overwhelms efforts to bring criminals to justice. Climate change and drought are driving conflict among herders, fishers and farmers who have lived together peacefully for hundreds of years. Afghanistan under the Taliban denies basic freedoms to women and persecutes minorities, while thousands of Syrians hope to return home if peace can be sustained.

As instability and violence mount globally, some political leaders have rejected the international rule of law and human rights in favour of closed borders, denying procedural due process, mandatory detention without access to the courts, forced deportation of asylum seekers to third countries and abuse of executive power by avoiding democratic processes.

Raw power, whether military, economic or political, has driven a retreat from multilateral collaboration to unilateral ‘beggar thy neighbour’ trade policies of the 1930’s, the very policies that prompted the rise of dictators and yet another world war.

Today, political debate, national or international, is deeply polarised, moving to extreme, dogmatic, binary responses that leave no room for nuance, complexity or compassion. Yet effective problem-solving requires compromise, recognition of just concerns and practical rather than ideological or ‘perfect’ outcomes. That is why the idea of a ‘sensible middle’ or ‘radical moderation’ is attractive.

In my job with the United Nations Refugee Agency, I learned the value of "principled pragmatism". Is this a contradiction in terms? How can one, at the same time, advocate for the right of refugees to asylum, or the integrity of territorial sovereignty, or the prosecution of war criminals, while also make concessions to other priorities? Is ‘appeasement’ always wrong, naïve or blind to evil?

Some core international legal rights cannot be compromised, including the absolute prohibition of torture, slavery, and territorial aggression. Most international legal rights however are relative to the reasonable and proportionate exercise of the rights of others.

Much of the humanitarian work of non-government organisations (NGOs), local faith communities, international organisations such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent and the United Nations agencies, are highly pragmatic, bringing practical, compassionate help in often illegal and unjust situations.

I well remember a meeting I had with the President of a sub-Saharan African nation. My role was to ask him to respect the 1958 Refugee Convention by granting asylum to the thousands of people seeking protection from violence in neighbouring countries.

The President was courteous. He listened as I explained that refugees in his country were not allowed to work or travel outside refugee camps; their children could not attend school and access to social services or medical care was limited. Then it was his turn.

He rightly pointed out that it was part of the African tradition to offer asylum to people in need of protection and that, as a party to the Refugee Convention, his country respected its principles. The President then set out the huge challenges facing his impoverished country. The borders were porous, with non-government armed groups, such as Al Shabab, attacking local villages and kidnapping schoolgirls for ransom and recruiting boys at the end of Kalashnikov rifles. National security of his own citizens was a top priority, and it was hard to identify a genuine asylum seeker from a terrorist. The costs of providing sanctuary to so many refugees from war torn neighbours were prohibitive and the global community was reluctant to share the burden.

Yes, he believed in the international rule of law, but poor governance, tribal conflicts over access to resources, foreign interference and corruption were his daily priorities. I left the meeting overwhelmed by the scale of the problems his country faced, feeling chastened for advocating compliance with the Refugee Convention despite so many existential security threats.

And yet, by the end of the meeting, the President agreed to ensure that all refugee children would be given access to primary school in his country. This was something; a not so small step to inclusion in the community and an opportunity for refugee children to be ready for the future. The country would continue to be in breach of the Refugee Convention in many respects, but a practical and humane outcome had been promised.

While our instincts are to fight for the right outcome, to insist on "victory" in political debate, experience shows how step-by-step compromises can craft a pathway to trust in the rule of law and measurable improvements in the human condition.

While we must hold fast to fundamental principles of human rights and justice, we also need influential leaders of integrity, at all levels of society, with the courage to find practical and humane solutions to rising global challenges.

Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs AC is an international lawyer and former UN Assistant Secretary-General and High Commissioner for Protection with UNHCR. She received the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Medal in 2022, was named 2023 International Law Woman of the Year, and appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia in 2025.