International law is not dead, its rules stay resilient

Rising tensions between the United States and Iran, with threats of the use of force, have once again triggered a debate on the utility of international law. International relations scholars are writing obituaries of international law, arguing that one should brace for a norm-free world. This precarious argument started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022), followed by Israel’s military actions in Gaza and West Asia. Donald Trump’s presidency, the recent illegal American actions in Venezuela, the U.S.’s withdrawal from numerous international organisations, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s astute observation of ‘rupture’ in the global order have given this thought a fillip. While it is true that international law is undergoing one of its darkest phases, pronouncing its death is not just merely intellectually lazy but also misleading.

Use of force

Let us take one of the most fundamental international norms — the prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter — as an example to understand this. It is true that this norm has been breached many times in recent years, but it has not been unprecedented. In 1970, international lawyer Thomas Franck argued that Article 2(4) had died because of wars around the world, owing to the Cold War rivalry between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union. In the past four decades, the U.S. and other powers have been involved in several wars, including the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-89), the Falklands war (1982), the Gulf war (1990-91), and conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria, and Libya in the 2010s. All these wars, like the wars and military attacks in the last few years, battered Article 2(4); they could not kill it. The law continues to exist and remains the only normative framework for holding the powerful accountable.

As Columbia professor Monica Hakimi argues, when international relations are legalised, those wielding public power are compelled to explain their conduct using the framework of international law. The claims that they make about authority will resonate with people only when their actions are grounded in domestic and international rules. Related to this is the point that international law is the only framework that gives the powerless a semblance of agency to ask questions to those wielding public power. A world without such a normative framework would be far more dangerous.

Still, today’s breach of Article 2(4) differs qualitatively from the past. In the past, powerful states justified their use of force by employing the analytical framework of international law, demonstrating that even hegemons needed this normative framework. This left open a prospect of dialogue and deliberation. So, in the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S. legally expanded the interpretation of self-defence — an exception to the use of force — to justify its military actions. Whether the American legal interpretations were correct or merely a tool to mask its imperial designs is debatable.

In today’s populist-authoritarian world, there is brazenness. A scarce attempt is made to justify behaviour as per international law, and the imperial designs stare in one’s face. The U.S.’s repeated insistence on Venezuelan oil drives home the point. It is this rising populist-authoritarianism that poses the greatest threat to international law, not the act of a military strike or invasion itself.

Looking beyond the use of force

Concurrently, it would be a mistake to reduce the entire body of international law to the UN Charter. While the UN Charter is undoubtedly a critical pillar, it does not by itself define the legalisation of international relations that has occurred over the last eight decades. Today, international law is widespread and diverse, governing international trade, foreign investment, civil aviation, maritime resources, outer space, human rights, climate change, chemical and biological weapons, and many other areas. This, as Yale professor Oona A. Hathaway argues, means that international law is flourishing as a social phenomenon.

International law works silently

International law-making continues unabated, as evidenced by the conclusion of free trade agreement negotiations between India and the European Union. In recent years, key treaties such as the High Seas Treaty (aimed at the sustainability of marine biological diversity), and a Pandemic Agreement (to strengthen pandemic prevention), have been signed. Over the years, hundreds of international courts, at global (such as the International Criminal Court) and regional levels (such as the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights), have been created, demonstrating the judicialisation of international relations. These courts, away from the limelight, continue to resolve complex international law disputes peacefully.

In sum, as international lawyer Philippe Sands reminds us, much of international law operates silently and seamlessly behind the scenes, despite the media-grabbing headlines about breaches of the UN Charter. This silent international law enables goods and people to cross borders, and communication networks to transcend national geographies, positively impacting the lives of ordinary people. Just as one does not abandon a liberal constitutional order due to an authoritarian regime running amok, one should fight to preserve the existing liberal international law order against the global bullies. Pontificating on the death of international law only plays into the hands of the global bullies.

Prabhash Ranjan is Professor and Vice Dean (Research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal

Published – February 28, 2026 12:08 am IST