International law embodies the aspiration that states globally, regardless of strength and influence, should be constrained by rules, norms, and laws that an institution’s design must regulate and oversee. The purpose of which is to prevent mass destruction and protect the dignity of mankind so that it is not trampled in the midst of some agenda or ulterior motive. This simple aspiration was the lifebreath and foundation of the creation of the United Nations, prompted after the devastation inflicted by World War II.
The UN charter, the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court (ICC) all have the foundation in place with the common goal of preventing mass calamity and being a moral vocabulary for global governance. Time and time again, it has proved itself fruitful, international law standing as a wall to protect the afflicted from those who afflict, yet at the peak of its need, why is it that we see international law lacking? Is international law a mere suggestion in this day and age? Is the crisis more rhetorical than real? Are the institutions hollowed out? Do powerful states have total impunity? Here is a deep dive into the reasons.
Rhetorical:
International law is made from treaties and customary practices; it’s a compilation of a set of general principles, judicial decisions, and conventions. Signatory states are required to adhere to and implement the conventions passed and are required to uphold a standard of humanitarian practice. So when we say the absence of it, it’s not a mere coincidence. It became a crisis after it manifested in unchecked wars, global violation of humanitarian norms and its lamentable role in an ongoing genocide. The weakness and absence are not due to lack of law but due to lack of enforcement of it. International law depends on the consent and good faith of the signatory countries. Veto nations have a separate say and influence, which all make the institutions hollowed out as of now due to the veto being unchecked.
Veto power:
The power of veto is the ability of any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council to block any substantive resolution with a single negative vote. On 24 September 2025, Finnish President Alexander Stubb addressed the UN General Assembly, stating that “the world order, balance and dynamics are changing much like they did after World War II.” The reference was intentional, signalling that global conditions today resemble the historical trajectory that once led to catastrophic conflict. Stubb further asserted, “Russia has no right to continue its aggression on Ukraine. Israel has no right to violate international law in Palestine.”
His comments draw attention to a glaring paradox: there are more armed conflicts now than there have been since World War II, despite a period of unparalleled access to information, technology, and diplomatic channels. This fact highlights the growing discrepancy between the UN system’s ideals and its capacity to uphold them. The veto initiative, which aims to increase accountability and transparency whenever a veto is used, was endorsed by a joint Nordic statement in April 2024. The initiative is a reflection of a growing frustration around the world: the idea that the veto, which was supposed to protect international stability, has instead been used as a means of protecting allies, impeding justice, and delaying humanitarian efforts.
Ambiguity, Sovereignty, and the Limits of International Law
The current crisis arises in part from the unclear nature of customary international law. In contrast to domestic laws, numerous international norms depend on state practice and opinio juris, a perception of legal duty that is intrinsically subjective. Consequently, countries frequently interpret norms to conform to their geopolitical priorities.
This is most evident in the growing and highly debated principle of anticipatory self-defence, used by states to rationalise military actions not against immediate threats, but rather hypothetical ones. According to Richard Weiss, anticipatory self-defence is “the most feeble legal argument”, but it is employed to justify actions that transform entire areas. Even when standards are defined, international law does not have a central authority for enforcement. Unlike national legal systems, there is no ultimate authority whose rulings nations must follow, no universally recognised judiciary, and no global law enforcement.
Sanctions, diplomatic pressure, voluntary compliance, and occasionally UN Security Council actions are all necessary for enforcement. But the P5’s veto power ensures that powerful countries can defend themselves and their allies, thereby creating a two-tiered system of accountability.
Selective Enforcement and Power Politics:
Power imbalances have always affected international law, even in its strongest form. Weiss claims that “the strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must,” a quote from Thucydides that still characterises international politics today.
Since its founding in 1998, the ICC has only produced 11 convictions, all of which were against African defendants, paving the way for claims of neocolonial bias. Cases involving strong states or their leaders, like those against Netanyahu or Putin, remain unresolved in the interim. The erosion is not sudden.
As Ahmad Irfan Aslam observes, multilateral institutions have been steadily undermined for years, culminating in a moment at the ICJ where dozens of states argued Israel’s occupation is unlawful, yet nothing changed, highlighting the painful gap between legal pronouncements and political reality. In crises like Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and Myanmar, the UN’s inability to carry out its own mandates has left civilians defenceless and aggressors unchecked, demonstrating this absence of international law.
The Weaponisation of International Law
The use of international law as a justification for violence rather than as a deterrent is a concerning trend that has grown over time. A perverse inversion of legal norms can be seen in Israel’s use of cluster bombs in Lebanon (2006), its creation of the “Dahiya doctrine”, Russia’s legalistic justifications for invading Ukraine and Hamas’ use of ICJ rulings to support attacks.
Even when it is blatantly broken, international law has become the language of world politics. States now use legalese to hide unlawful behaviour, diluting the significance of the standards they cite. According to Itamar Mann, this is the point at which international law started to permit the use of brute force instead of restricting it.
President Stubb stressed the need for reform within the Security Council. He maintained that rather than reflecting the complexity of the current global order, the body as it exists today reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945. A multipolar world shaped by new powers, new conflicts, and new forms of influence cannot be effectively governed by a council created in the wake of World War II.
In order to guarantee greater accountability, wider representation, and decision-making that represents the global community as it is today rather than as it was eighty years ago, Stubb emphasised that the Security Council needs to be reformed. This point gets to the core of the problem: strong states have been able to use international law as a weapon due to the Council’s antiquated structure. Instead, organisations that were supposed to protect humanity have been turned into instruments of strategic obstruction, political influence, and selective enforcement. Veto power turns international law from a system of collective security into a tool of coercion when it is used to defend allies or further geopolitical objectives.
The UN framework’s moral purpose would be restored with improved representation in the Security Council and more robust checks on the use of the veto. It would guarantee that an individual state would be unable to subvert, impede, or silence international law. Only then will the system be able to carry out its original purpose, which was to serve as a safeguard for all peoples and nations rather than a weapon in the hands of the powerful.
Judge Dire Tladi of the International Court of Justice says that the political will necessary to uphold the law is failing rather than the law itself. Although the law still “issues directives and judgements”, these “fall on closed ears”. Can international law continue to have any significance when states increasingly fail to act in good faith?
This is not a theoretical question for many civilians, including those in Sudan, Gaza, Kashmir, and Ukraine. It is a life-or-death situation. And in the end, human life should not be subordinated to politics or other agendas.
The Way Forward
Reform is achievable, but it is constrained. The appointment of a new UN Secretary-General in 2027 may provide a brief opportunity for structural reforms, as Weiss points out. However, the strongest states have little motivation to strengthen institutions that could eventually limit them. Rethinking sovereignty, enforcement strategies, and the distribution of power in international organisations would be necessary for a true transformation; these changes are unlikely to take place absent a significant worldwide upheaval.
According to some academics, international law needs to be “re-engineered” in order to endure this century. In order to maintain what little restraint is still in place, some advocate for practical compromises. However, an increasing number of people believe that maintaining the current system might only entail tending to the remnants of an ambitious endeavour. It’s undetermined if international law is dying, changing, or just hibernating.
The rule of law between nations may soon completely give way to the rule of might unless states decide to resurrect the good faith, cooperation, and mutual restraint that once drove the international order. And as a result, the world, which is already tearing apart due to conflicts, climate shocks, and growing nationalism, may enter a much darker and more perilous period.