1.

Crisis of Confidence in International Law

A growing number of scholars and practitioners are losing faith in international law. The problem lies not
in the law itself but in the lack of compliance by states. Without genuine commitment, legal frameworks
collapse, and institutions lose their legitimacy.

2. The India-Pakistan Crisis Over Pahalgam

After terrorists killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, India swiftly blamed Pakistan, launched missile strikes, and
threatened to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty. This act, if executed, would violate both the treaty and
international water law, affecting over 250 million Pakistanis.

3. Legal Powerlessness in the Face of Crisis

Ahmad Irfan Aslam, Pakistan’s former law minister, acknowledged the grim reality: international
institutions can no longer guarantee justice. Even if Pakistan approached the ICJ or UN, enforcement
would likely fail due to eroded multilateral trust and rising unilateralism.

4. The ICJ and the Palestine Occupation

In 2024, Aslam represented Pakistan at the ICJ over Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Although 52
states participated, most believed the proceedings would not change the situation. The legal process had
become symbolic, with little effect on ground realities.

5. U.S. and Israeli Strikes on Iran

The United States and Israel conducted unlawful airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, further undermining
international law. These actions breached fundamental norms of sovereignty and non-aggression. Yale’s
Oona Hathaway warned that such behavior erodes global legal order and normalizes governance by might
over law.

6. U.S. Withdrawal from Global Institutions

The U.S. has weakened international norms by withdrawing from key institutions like the Paris
Agreement, WHO, and UNHRC. Its sanctions on the ICC disrupted war crimes investigations in Ukraine
and Gaza. These moves reflect a shift from multilateral cooperation to unilateral dominance.

7. The Danger of Normalizing Illegality

Trump’s public musings about occupying Greenland or seizing the Panama Canal signaled a breakdown in
legal thinking. As Hathaway noted, even suggesting such illegal actions damages international norms,
making them appear acceptable or feasible in political discourse.

8. Is International Law Still Relevant?

The relevance of international law has always been debated. Critics argue it enables powerful states to
justify their actions, while advocates see it as a moral framework preventing global chaos. Today, even
international lawyers disagree on whether the system is functioning, collapsing, or already dead.

9. Civilians Trapped in a Broken System

Whether in Kashmir, Gaza, or Iran, innocent civilians are paying the price for the collapse of legal norms.
International law, without enforcement, becomes a hollow promise—unable to shield the vulnerable from
war, displacement, or state violence.

1. The Hague: A City of Symbols

The Hague is more than a city—it is a living museum of the international legal order. From the Peace
Palace to the International Criminal Court (ICC), its streets are lined with institutions that represent past
and ongoing efforts to create global justice. These buildings evoke a sense of ambition, but also of failure,
as many of them are associated with unresolved or ineffective legal proceedings.

2. Institutions in Proximity, Not in Purpose

While these institutions are geographically close—such as the Iran-US Claims Tribunal and the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—they are legally and functionally distinct. Yet their
co-location in The Hague lends them a shared aura or "patina of legitimacy", reinforcing the symbolic
weight of international law even when coordination among them is minimal.

3. The Enigma of International Law

Scholars still disagree on what international law actually is. It is often described through metaphors: like
gravity (unseen but real), like spelling (seemingly arbitrary), or even like tragedy and comedy (both absurd
and heartbreaking). This diversity of analogies reflects the complexity and contested nature of the
discipline.

4. More Than Rules: A Language of Global Morality

International law is not just a set of rules and treaties; it serves as the lingua franca of global governance,
expressing moral outrage and demands for justice. It allows people to articulate expectations of
accountability on the world stage, even when actual enforcement is lacking. As Gerry Simpson noted, it
has become the vernacular of the educated middle class.

5. The Fragile Legacy of International Criminal Law

The most visible face of international law is international criminal law—the trials of war criminals and
perpetrators of genocide. Iconic moments like the Nuremberg Trials shaped its moral narrative. But this
branch of law is the youngest and most contested, often politicized and frequently criticized for failing to
deliver real justice.

6. A "Dead Man Walking"? The Crisis of International Criminal Law

There is a growing belief that international criminal law has failed. Rutgers professor Adil Haque remarked
that the gap between the law’s lofty ideals and real-world outcomes has widened. If law does not achieve
justice in practice, it risks losing its relevance and legitimacy.

1. The ICC: A Dream Born in the Post-Cold War Glow

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created in 1998 as the embodiment of international law’s most
idealistic vision—to prosecute crimes against humanity when domestic systems fail. According to analyst
David Bosco, it emerged during a rare moment when global powers were less concerned about
sovereignty, allowing such a legal experiment to succeed.

2. The Court’s Limited Success and African Focus

Despite its global ambitions, the ICC has delivered only 11 convictions in over two decades, all involving
African defendants. This has led to accusations of bias and neocolonialism, prompting several African
Union states to consider withdrawing from the Rome Statute. Critics like Martti Koskenniemi argue that
the ICC was shaped by the liberal overconfidence of the 1990s.

3. Perceptions of Bias and Victor’s Justice

The ICC has often been branded a "fake court" or a tool for victor’s justice, lacking legitimacy among
Global South nations. Even high-profile actions, such as the arrest of former Philippine president Rodrigo
Duterte, are legally contested—since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2019. The ICC
argues it can still act on crimes committed before that date.

4. High-Profile Arrest Warrants vs Political Reality

The ICC has issued arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, marking a bold
stance. However, neither Russia nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute, making actual prosecution
highly unlikely. Countries like the US, China, Syria—and recently Hungary—also reject ICC jurisdiction,
further weakening its global reach.

5. U.S. Hostility: Undermining from the Start

The United States has actively worked to undermine the ICC. In 2002, Congress passed the so-called
“Hague Invasion Act”, authorizing the use of force to free any U.S. personnel detained by the ICC. In 2017,
when prosecutor Fatou Bensouda tried to investigate U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, she was denied a
U.S. visa and faced economic and political pressure.

6. Threats Against ICC Prosecutors

Fatou Bensouda also faced personal threats while investigating alleged genocide in Palestine. This reflects
the real danger ICC officials face when they challenge powerful states. Investigations are often dropped
not due to lack of evidence, but due to external political pressure.

7. A Court With Teeth—or a Court in Danger?

Paradoxically, as Chantal Meloni noted, the moment the ICC shows strength may mark its undoing.
Efforts to hold powerful figures accountable raise its credibility—but also trigger backlash that could
cripple or dismantle it. The court stands at a fragile crossroads between symbolism and survival.

Thank you for sharing this comprehensive and powerful excerpt. Below is a structured version with clear,
concise headings and compact paragraphs, capturing all the key themes and critiques—perfect for CSS
answers, policy essays, or academic notes.

1. Core Criticisms of International Law

International law is often seen as too weak, politicized, and selectively enforced. As Yusra Suedi notes,
states are both subjects and enforcers in a “horizontal system” that lacks a superior authority. This system
favors powerful states, who are labeled “hegemons” rather than “rogues” when they break the rules.

2. Law as a Tool of Justification, Not Restraint

Critics argue that international law often legitimizes violence rather than preventing it. For example,
international humanitarian law restricts indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs, yet Israel used them
in 2006 in Lebanon, killing over 1,000 civilians. Legal justifications—such as pre-warning residents—were
used to defend actions that clearly violated the principle of proportionality.
3. The “Dahiya Doctrine” and Collapse of Legal Norms

Israel’s Dahiya doctrine, which permits disproportionate force against civilian areas, directly violates
international law. For scholars like Itamar Mann, this was a turning point. When legal language is used to
justify what law is supposed to prevent, international law loses its meaning.

4. Weaponizing International Law

Violators increasingly invoke international law to justify their actions. Russia used legal arguments to
defend its invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Hamas cited an ICJ opinion to justify its October 7 attack on Israel.
Israeli officials regularly reference international law to shield actions in Gaza. Even North Korea accuses
others of violating legal norms, exposing the performative nature of legal discourse.

5. The Loss of Moral Clarity

Gerry Simpson argues that international law has become a shell of words, disconnected from the brutal
realities of war. Descriptions like “serious violations” fail to capture the horror of civilian deaths and
torture. Law, once a tool of accountability, now risks becoming an abstraction.

6. Holding On While Facing Decline

Monica Hakimi warns against abandoning international legal norms altogether, as they have historically
prevented mass atrocities. Yet she recognizes that the system needs serious rethinking. Clinging to a
broken framework will not stop the world’s most dangerous conflicts.

7. Institutional Stagnation and the Need for Reform

Veteran legal adviser Sir Daniel Bethlehem believes that international institutions like the UN, IMF, and
World Bank are outdated. They are not capable of resolving today’s crises in Sudan, Gaza, or Ukraine.
Instead, he calls for bold re-engineering and systemic redesign of the international legal and institutional
architecture.

8. Conclusion: Between Hope and Hollow Ritual

While some still believe in the power of international law, others see it as a ritual stripped of impact.
Whether through misuse, erosion, or paralysis, the system no longer ensures justice or peace. A reckoning
is overdue—not to abandon the law, but to reshape it for a changed world.

1. For Some, There Is No Crisis in International Law

Dire Tladi, a prominent South African legal scholar and now a judge at the International Court of Justice
(ICJ), argues that international law is not in crisis. It remains, in his view, a neutral framework meant to
apply “without fear or favour”. But when pressed about the real-world impact of these rules, even he
admits the law often falls short in practice.

2. Law Without Power: “The Court Is Only a Court”

Tladi acknowledges that courts can make judgments and issue orders, but cannot enforce them. In his
legal opinion on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, he noted the horrors in Gaza and the court’s
demands—but concluded, “the court is only a court.” No legal opinion can stop a military offensive or
rescue hostages. The limits of law in the face of raw power are clear.

3. Law vs Politics: A Power Imbalance

According to Tladi, what we are witnessing is not the failure of law but of politics. The legal framework
exists—even for genocide—but political power often overrides it. “Gaps in international law,” he said, are
exploited for non-accountability, and even where no gaps exist, enforcement is hindered by geopolitical
interests.

4. A Palestinian Human Rights Perspective

Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, also defends the integrity of
international law. Despite losing his home in an Israeli airstrike, he sees value in legal victories: the ICJ’s
recognition of a plausible genocide in Gaza, the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, and ongoing war
crimes investigations under universal jurisdiction.

5. The Problem Is Selective Application, Not the Law

Sourani argues that the selective application of international law is the real issue. Western powers
support the legal rights of Ukraine but ignore the same principles when applied to Palestine. “You cannot
be real democracies,” he says, “when you are selective in deciding to whom international law applies.”

6. The Danger of Cynicism in Legal Discourse

Leila Sadat, former ICC special adviser, warns that constant skepticism from within the legal community
has weakened the system. Questioning the legitimacy of international law, she believes, invites
manipulation and attack. While reform is necessary, abandoning the core belief in accountability for
mass atrocities is dangerous.

7. Law Is Not Just Theory—It’s Survival

For Sourani, the law is not abstract theory—it is about survival, dignity, and justice. He describes the
suffering of people in Gaza in visceral terms. “These are the lives of people,” he says. His friend, still
trapped in Gaza, tells him he dreams of dying—not out of despair, but from the unbearable weight of
hopelessness.

8. Conclusion: Law Must Be Defended, Not Abandoned

Despite its failures and limitations, international law remains essential to those facing violence,
occupation, and injustice. Its defenders argue that it must not be discarded but strengthened and
universally applied. As long as people continue to believe in justice, the law still matters—even if its power
is fading.

Here is your full final excerpt rewritten with all the key points included, organized under clear and concise
headings with compact, content-rich paragraphs. Nothing from your original has been left out.

1. International Law: A Cycle of Crisis and Renewal

Yusra Suedi describes international law as cyclical. In her view, major crises often compel humanity to
reflect, realign with core values, and recommit to legal norms. Today’s era may be one of downturn, but
that does not signal the end of international law—it will persist, though weakened, with diminishing
institutional credibility and declining influence of its rulings.

2. Domestic and International Law Are Interlinked

Leila Sadat warns that mocking or undermining international law has consequences beyond the global
stage. When a president like Trump attacks the rule of law at home, it shows how all legal systems—
international and domestic—rely on good faith. Disrespect for one erodes trust in the other.

3. China Filling the U.S. Void in Global Legal Forums

As the U.S. withdraws from multilateral institutions, China is stepping into the legal vacuum. Unlike the
U.S., China actively attends ICC meetings and participates in global legal systems, signaling a future
where China may lead a redefined international order.

4. The Chinese Vision: Sovereignty Over Rights

Julian Ku explains that China's legal worldview is built around rigid protection of state sovereignty, not
human rights or humanitarian intervention. In forums like the UN, China promotes this vision to
developing nations tired of Western lectures. Monica Hakimi notes that authoritarian African nations
now prefer China as hegemon for this reason.
5. China's Inconsistencies and Power Politics

Despite its emphasis on sovereignty, China’s record is not consistent. It criticizes U.S. strikes on Iran,
calling them harmful to diplomacy, yet does little to help Ukraine. As Ku points out, other unresolved
occupations—like Turkey in Cyprus—are simply accepted. Power continues to dictate legal engagement.

6. The Collapse of Foundational Treaties

Legal structures are crumbling. In June 2025, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah declared the Indus Waters
Treaty dead, vowing that Pakistan would be starved of “unjustified” water. This statement marks a
blatant disregard for binding international agreements.

7. Ahmad’s Hopeful Legal Realism

Despite the current decay, Ahmad Irfan Aslam, Pakistan’s former law minister, remains hopeful. He
believes that for every crime, there is counter-litigation. While judgments may not be enforced, they are
still significant. Today’s rulings may seem powerless, but they will re-emerge and matter in time.

8. A Crisis That May Save International Law

Ahmad predicts that the crisis capable of reviving international law is not Gaza, Ukraine, or multilateral
collapse—but climate change. He sees climate litigation as a catalyst that will eventually reshape other
areas of international law, beginning with trade and investment, and later territorial disputes and ICC
prosecutions.

9. Global Climate Litigation at the ICJ

Last year, an unprecedented number of states joined ICJ climate proceedings. The court is now preparing
an advisory opinion on state obligations to protect the environment. Tladi warns that if climate collapse
continues, we must ask whether the law is inadequate—or simply ignored.

10. The Law Mirrors the World It Serves

Tladi concludes that international law is not static, but reflective of the global political landscape.
“International law will be fine,” he says, “but it will reflect the state of the world.” The critical question
now is not about the law's survival—but rather, what kind of world we are shaping for it to govern.