You could be forgiven for believing that international law is extinct in a time when wars are broadcast live and tweets cause global crises. After all, if the powerful can disregard the rules, what good is a “rules-based order?” However, that is precisely why the importance of international law cannot be negated. Yes, it has flaws—frequently lacking teeth, laughably so at times. However, when it comes to determining what is morally correct, what is lawful, and what is worth defending in international politics, international law continues to be our only common language. Although, to this view, positivists tend to disagree.
Essentially, interactions between states and, increasingly, non-state actors are governed by international law. In Starke’s International Law, Ivan Shearer summed it up as “a body of regulations that govern how nations and other international actors behave.” Treaties, traditions, legal principles, and decisions from international courts are the sources of these regulations. In interpreting and their occasional implementation, these norms, and their implementing organizations such as the ICC, the UN, and the ICJ, are essential.
Nevertheless, the criticism is widespread and frequently valid – the political commitment behind international law determines its strength. The world law enforcement does not exist, nor is there a mandatory jurisdiction supreme court, nor is there a hard hand to enforce its rulings. Rather, it depends on consent, cooperation, and hope.
Consider the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia. The answer? Prohibitions, fury, and legal defences – not a reversal, though. The ICC more recently issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin in 2023. The response from around the world was divided; some people applauded, while others made fun of it. Neither man has been taken into custody. Both continue to perpetrate gross violations of international norms. What’s the point, then? Legitimacy is the key.
International law determines who is on the right side of history, even though it cannot stop missiles. Even though Putin may never see the inside of a cell, the ICC warrant leaves a mark on him that cannot be removed by propaganda. The same is true for Israel, whose leaders are coming under more and more legal scrutiny for their involvement in the Gaza War. The ICJ recognized a “plausible risk of genocide” in South Africa v. Israel, a legal setback with long-lasting political repercussions. Besides this, unlike in 2003 when the world was swayed by unfounded claims on Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, the same rhetoric is unlikely to hold, considering the world now knows the truth, although the extent to which the truth stands in practice is debatable.
International courts influence the narrative even when they are ignored. Ukraine is aware of this. Its legal professionals are fighting Russia not just with bullets but also with briefs at the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the ICJ, while its soldiers are engaged in combat on the battlefield. The legal dispute is as much about land as it is about the truth. But what about the law enforcement? The UN Security Council is cited by critics as an excellent illustration of failure. The veto power of its five permanent members frequently paralyzes this peacekeeping body. Justice starts to be selective. Accountability turns into an alliance issue.
The recent escalation between Iran and Israel is a good place to start. In the shadow of a silent UN whose charter forbids the very acts it can’t seem to stop, covert attacks, civilian casualties, and missile exchanges are taking place. The legal system is still in place, though. States rush to use international law to defend their actions, even during times of war; they frequently, erroneously, and occasionally misuse it, but they always acknowledge it. We can learn something from this. Despite their fragility, these standards continue to be essential to international legitimacy.
There are also minor but noteworthy triumphs. Major trade disputes, like the EU-US aircraft subsidies scandal, have been settled by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Even the worst crimes can result in punishment, as demonstrated by the ICC’s 2012 conviction of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga. In Canada and the Netherlands v. Syria, the ICJ made a daring decision just last year, voting 13–2 in favor of temporary measures due to Syria’s alleged use of torture. China and Russia disagreed. It is unlikely that enforcement will occur. What about the symbolism? It’s obvious. In a world where domestic justice frequently falls short, international law provides an alternative that prioritizes accountability, morality, and credibility.
Furthermore, these principles are never irrelevant, even though they might not always prevail. War is not the only thing governed by international law. It influences climate agreements such as the Paris Agreement. The International Health Regulations direct pandemic response. It protects refugees and establishes limits for cutting-edge technology like AI. It changes gradually, imperfectly, but inevitably, from the Geneva Conventions to recent discussions about cyberwarfare. Therefore, no, international law isn’t flawless.
However, it remains our best chance for order in a world of escalating nationalism, unbridled aggression, and institutional decay. It serves as the platform for the fight for legitimacy. While it might not stop injustice, it makes sure that it is not tolerated. And that is more important now than it has ever been.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Moiz Mehboob Mirza is a final-year law student at the University of London. He has interned at various notable law firms, including RIAA Barker Gillette, Walker Martineau Saleem, the Legal Arch, and Justice Project Pakistan.
