International law, ‘optional’ for powerful states

International law, ‘optional’ for powerful states

International law optional for powerful states – Subscribers gain access to exclusive features such as Premium Stories, Editorials, and Opinions, enhancing their engagement with thought-provoking content. These offerings are unlocked through a subscription, offering deeper insights into global issues.

Science For All

The weekly newsletter from science writers simplifies complex concepts, making scientific knowledge accessible and engaging for all readers.

Health Matters

Ramya Kannan delivers actionable advice on maintaining optimal health and fostering long-term wellness, addressing both prevention and care.

‘The erosion of international law has tangible consequences’

Voltaire’s famous quip about the Holy Roman Empire — that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire — has often come to mind when I think about the contemporary state of public international law. For all its lofty aspirations, it is frequently neither truly public, nor reliably international, nor consistently law. It is public only in the sense that it concerns states rather than private actors; international only insofar as sovereigns consent to be bound; and law only to the extent that it can be enforced — an increasingly fragile proposition in a world where power, not principle, is again determining outcomes.

Over the past 150 years, the international community has meticulously crafted a system of norms, treaties, and institutions to curb the excesses of state power. From the Hague Conventions to the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and frameworks for human rights and arms control, these tools were designed to replace the chaos of the past with a structured order. Yet, in recent years, that order has unraveled rapidly. Across continents and conflicts, states have flagrantly violated core principles, weakening the very system intended to preserve global peace and stability.

The most critical of these principles is the UN Charter’s ban on the use of force and its commitment to state sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran in 2026 exemplify stark breaches of this norm in recent history. Both actions represent unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, justified through shaky claims and executed with overwhelming military power. These events highlight how the Charter’s foundational promise can be discarded when a dominant state chooses to ignore it.

Powerful states have consistently undermined the prohibition on force. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, launched without Security Council approval, set a dangerous precedent. Its justification, later discredited, paved the way for Russia’s later actions. Recently, the targeted assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and coordinated strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iran have raised questions about the erosion of the principle against unilateral force. Israel’s repeated military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, including large-scale bombings that resulted in significant civilian casualties, have also drawn accusations of disproportionate force and breaches of international humanitarian law.

This trend extends beyond major powers. Türkiye’s incursions into northern Syria, Azerbaijan’s military actions in Nagorno-Karabakh, and Ethiopia’s conduct in the Tigray conflict, including cross-border strikes into Sudan, have all challenged international norms. These instances show that even mid-tier states may exploit the flexibility of international law when their interests align with breaking established rules.

UNCLOS and Maritime Disputes

International maritime law has also faced scrutiny. The South China Sea has become a hotspot for systematic disregard of UNCLOS, which is among the most widely adopted treaties globally. China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim, rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016, continues to be enforced through militarized artificial islands, aggressive coast-guard actions, and the interception of foreign vessels. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have all encountered encroachments into their exclusive economic zones, illustrating how even a universally recognized treaty can be sidelined by assertive claims.

The Strait of Hormuz has seen repeated disruptions, with Iran and the U.S. imposing blockades and intercepting tankers without clear legal backing under UNCLOS. These maneuvers threaten the principle of freedom of navigation, a vital component for global trade and maritime security. Such actions demonstrate the ease with which powerful states can manipulate legal frameworks to secure strategic advantages.

Humanitarian Law Violations in Syria

International humanitarian law has also been compromised. In Syria, the Assad regime’s deployment of chemical weapons, indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, and siege tactics have been extensively documented. Non-state actors, such as the Islamic State, have similarly been accused of violating the principles of proportionality and distinction. These violations underscore a broader pattern where even the most fundamental laws are disregarded when political or military gains are at stake.

The ongoing conflict in Syria has tested the resilience of international legal norms. Despite global condemnation, the use of force against civilian populations has persisted, highlighting the challenges in enforcing international law without the backing of powerful states. This situation reflects a growing trend where legal principles are secondary to immediate interests, undermining the credibility of the global legal order.

In summary, the erosion of international law reveals a system where power often outweighs principle. While the law provides a framework for global governance, its enforcement depends on the willingness of dominant states to uphold it. This dynamic raises critical questions about the effectiveness of international norms and the need for stronger mechanisms to ensure accountability, even for the most influential actors.