Introduction
Once hailed as the moral architecture of the post-war international order, international law today teeters on the brink of irrelevance. Born of idealism, hardened through genocide, war, and colonialism, and designed to tame the brute force of state power, it now finds itself weakened by selective enforcement, strategic manipulation, and outright defiance. From Pahalgam to Gaza, from the International Criminal Court to the United Nations Security Council, the institutions and principles of international law are being undermined by the very actors sworn to uphold them.
The April 2025 terrorist attack in the Indian town of Pahalgam, which left 26 civilians dead, was swiftly followed by Indian missile strikes into Pakistan and a shocking unilateral decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. This treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, has been one of the few enduring agreements between the two nuclear powers.
India’s move not only violates the treaty itself but also transgresses customary international law governing transboundary watercourses. The principle of "equitable and reasonable utilization" of shared water resources—enshrined in the UN Watercourses Convention—has been all but discarded. Pakistan could appeal to international dispute settlement mechanisms such as the ICJ or the Permanent Court of Arbitration. But in the current climate, few expect any ruling to be respected. As legal scholar Ahmad Aslam noted, "International law has always depended on the good faith of nation states. And that good faith has eroded."
The ICJ and the Illusion of Consequence
Aslam's pessimism was sharpened during the 2024 ICJ hearings on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Despite overwhelming legal opinion that the occupation was unlawful, the gap between law and enforcement remains vast. The court's advisory opinions carry moral weight but lack binding power. More than 50 countries participated, yet, as Aslam observed, "there was an acute realisation that none of this is actually going to change anything on the ground."
The ICC: A Court in Crisis
With an annual budget exceeding €200 million and only 11 convictions since it began effectively operating in 2002 (when the Rome Statute entered into force) — all involving African nationals (despite global jurisdiction) — the International Criminal Court has come to symbolise both the ambition and the limitations of international criminal justice. While the arrest warrants for Putin and Netanyahu have garnered attention, their practical impact is negligible. Neither Russia nor Israel are party to the Rome Statute, and geopolitical reality shields their leaders from arrest.
The United States—a non-member that nonetheless wields great influence over the ICC — has actively undermined the court. The 2002 American Service-Members’ Protection Act (the so-called "Hague Invasion Act") authorises the use of force to free U.S. personnel held by the court. Under Trump, ICC prosecutors were sanctioned for investigating alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan.
This pattern of obstruction is not unique. The ICC’s limited reach and its selective pursuit of justice have fostered accusations of neo-colonialism and institutional hypocrisy.
When Law Becomes a Shield for Aggression
Perhaps most corrosive is the instrumentalisation of international law as a justification for violence. During Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon, its use of cluster munitions against civilian areas was defended on legal grounds, despite violating the proportionality principle. The so-called "Dahiya doctrine"—justifying disproportionate attacks on civilian infrastructure—is antithetical to the Geneva Conventions, yet remains unpunished.
Similarly, Russia justified its 2014 annexation of Crimea with spurious legal arguments, while Hamas in 2023 cited ICJ rulings in defence of its attacks. International law is no longer just ignored; it is weaponised.
The Structural Failures of International Institutions
The UN Security Council, paralysed by the veto power of its five permanent members, has become a bystander to atrocity. U.S. withdrawals from the WHO, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Human Rights Council have weakened multilateralism. Sanctions against the ICC further cripple its function.
The erosion of international law reflects broader structural failures. As the eminent legal theorist Martti Koskenniemi observed, international law has become "a managerial exercise rather than a moral compass."
China and the Authoritarian Turn
As the U.S. retreats from multilateralism, China is filling the vacuum—but with a legal vision centred on sovereignty over human rights. China’s active participation in ICC meetings and its growing role in UN diplomacy signal a shift. As Hofstra University’s Julian Ku warns, we may be moving toward a "China-led international legal order" where norms of humanitarian protection are subordinate to state control.
Climate Change: A Last Hope?
Some scholars see climate change as the issue that could re-legitimise international law. With dozens of states now seeking ICJ advisory opinions on environmental obligations, there is hope that a new generation of legal norms will emerge. If humanity can rally around binding climate jurisprudence, it may also revitalize the broader framework of international cooperation.
Conclusion: A System in Decline or Reinvention?
The verdict is not clear-cut. International law is undoubtedly in retreat. But it is not dead. Its institutions are battered, and its credibility is shaken. Yet, as South African jurist Dire Tladi reminds us, "The law is there. The problem is politics."
International law reflects the world it governs. In an age of rising authoritarianism, fractured multilateralism, and strategic cynicism, the erosion of legal norms is both symptom and cause. But history shows that law evolves in response to crisis. Whether the crises of today—from Gaza to Kashmir, from climate change to cyberwarfare — will destroy the international legal order or compel its rebirth remains an open question.
References
ICJ Advisory Proceedings on Palestine, 2024
UN Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997)
American Service-Members' Protection Act (2002)
Koskenniemi, M. (2023). The Sentimental Life of International Law
Ku, J. (2024). China and the Future of International Law
Sadat, L. (2025). Accountability in an Age of Impunity
Tladi, D. (2025). Legal Opinions in South Africa v. Israel (ICJ Proceedings)
Sourani, R. (2025). Interviews with The Guardian
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/22
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
Comments
Post a Comment