“A dead man walking:” Have we seen the collapse of international law?💀

Is international law the most effective system for global order?

• Yes - it is not possible to establish a system more powerful
• No - international law is waning in power

“The gap between international law and reality is greater and greater… law is supposed to achieve things in the real world.”

International law is about bolstering unity, cooperation and peace. The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 was intended to embody the aspiration of holding perpetrators accountable when nations fail to do so. However, international law has waned because of the increasing scrutiny after recent global conflicts such as the US-Israel military attack on Iran. As a result, critics and journalists have questioned the lacklustre and ineffective approach of international law. Instead of acting as a deterrent to the escalation of global conflicts, it has often failed to meet violations of the law with appropriate sanctions. Alternatively, it has been argued that, like all laws, international law depends on the willingness of states and organisations to uphold it in order to be impactful. Therefore, is international law rightly criticised, or has it prevented the global anarchy and chaos that might otherwise have ensued?

International law is a system of legally binding rules and standards that governs relationships between countries and international organisations, outlining their responsibilities to one another. These rules are enforced through customs, agreements and treaties. Within this branch of law, the primary objectives are to limit warfare, protect civilians during conflict, and safeguard fundamental human rights at all times. However, international law has been in a precarious state in recent decades as growing global conflicts have increasingly rendered it ineffective.

A recent example used to demonstrate whether international law remains impactful in modern society is the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran. This conflict was initially launched in 2025 following concerns from the US regarding Iran’s expanding nuclear development. As a result, missiles were launched that destroyed a nuclear facility in Iran. However, in 2026, Trump declared that Iran had continued rebuilding nuclear weapons, which he claimed warranted another wave of attacks. The challenge international law faces in this conflict lies in its unintended consequences. The destruction of civilian sites such as schools, hospitals and homes has become a frequent outcome of missile strikes. Most shockingly, a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, was reportedly hit during air strikes, killing more than one hundred innocent children. This would constitute a clear violation of international law. Such incidents highlight how international law can appear increasingly redundant, as policies and rules are violated without effective enforcement. International law therefore seems unable to fulfil its purpose of discouraging conflict. Furthermore, while the United Nations may call for investigations and accountability, these processes often take years, and powerful countries frequently evade responsibility. As a result, international law can appear more theoretical than practical.

Looking back to 2025, a year marked by major developments in space exploration, medicine and artificial intelligence was also overshadowed by tragic events. One such incident was the attack in Kashmir, where terrorists killed 26 innocent civilians. Pakistan was immediately blamed, leading to air strikes and threats to cut off 75% of Pakistan’s water supply. Fundamentally, this would violate principles of equity in international law as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While Pakistan could theoretically bring the matter before international courts or the United Nations, many argue that decisions would be unlikely to be effectively enforced due to weak punishments. Historically, international law has relied heavily on good faith and cooperation between states, which may ultimately be its Achilles’ heel. Recognition of legal violations is no longer consistently met with justice, leaving innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of geopolitical conflicts.

As previously mentioned, international law is largely based on agreements and treaties. In theory, countries should respect these laws on moral grounds, but in reality cooperation cannot be enforced if treaties have not been signed. Institutions that uphold this legal order have also weakened in recent years, partly due to Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from several international agreements, including the Paris Climate Agreement and the United Nations Human Rights Council. Not only is the United States not a party to the jurisdiction of the ICC in The Hague, but it has also imposed sanctions on the court itself for alleged misconduct. This demonstrates the significant global influence of the United States. As a result, the ICC has faced financial and political obstacles that have further contributed to the weakening of international law. Trump’s temporary takeover of Venezuela, threats to occupy Canada, and the recent conflict with Iran illustrate how difficult it is for the ICC to prevent or punish powerful states involved in global conflicts. Some critics argue that rather than protecting global peace, international law has allowed powerful states to justify deviant or aggressive behaviour.

Another issue weakening international law is the limited resources available to the ICC. With an annual budget of roughly €200 million, the court has struggled to investigate and prosecute many international crimes. In fact, since its establishment, the ICC has secured only 11 convictions. Its lack of enforcement power is further illustrated by the arrest warrant issued for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Despite the warrant, the likelihood of a formal trial remains extremely low. The ICC was created through the Rome Statute in 1998, which many countries, including the United Kingdom, have incorporated into their national legislation. However, major global powers such as the United States, China and Syria have refused to ratify the statute, limiting the court’s authority. The United States has also actively attempted to undermine the ICC’s power. For example, in 2002 it passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, often referred to as the “Hague Invasion Act,” which authorises the president to use all necessary means to prevent the ICC from prosecuting American officials. This situation highlights a point captured by one international lawyer: “the minute the court shows that it has teeth might be the end of the court.”

Furthermore, international law provides conventions, norms and rules intended to guide the behaviour of states. However, rather than preventing large-scale destruction and conflict, some critics argue that these frameworks allow countries to justify their actions by adjusting the language used to describe them. In this sense, international law can provide a “vocabulary” through which states justify violence while claiming legal legitimacy. For example, in conflicts involving Hamas and Israel, actions have sometimes been framed as efforts to uphold or defend international law, even when they contribute to further conflict.

Yet the question remains: is this criticism entirely justified? What practical system could perform better than international law has done? Countries and governments are immensely powerful actors, and courts ultimately rely on cooperation and enforcement from states themselves. Any legal system can fail if political power overrides morality and ethics. In this sense, it may not be international law that is failing, but rather the political environment in which it operates. International institutions have continued to recognise injustices, for example by issuing arrest warrants or by acknowledging allegations of genocide in conflicts such as those in Gaza Strip. The deeper problem may lie in the selective application of international law by states, which often apply legal principles only when it serves their own interests.

The Middle Ground:

Ultimately, international law can be seen as a belief system as much as a legal framework, requiring widespread commitment in order to function effectively. Some critics question whether it has become merely a “collection of words.” However, if humanity manages to overcome the current wave of conflicts, including tensions with Iran, international law may need to be reconsidered and strengthened rather than abandoned. All legal systems depend on good faith and cooperation. If states refuse to respect them, no legal framework can succeed. Therefore, the problem may lie less in the system itself and more in the willingness of states to uphold it. Major global crises - from conflicts in Gaza to tensions with Iran - may ultimately remind us why such laws exist. In the end, any legal system reflects the state of the world that created it. The survival of international law will therefore depend not only on institutions, but also on the cooperation and commitment of nations themselves.