International law, encompassing recognized rules of behavior among nations based on customary practices and treaties such as the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has been widely accepted by both large and small nations. To uphold this law, global powers have established entities like the UN Security Council, tasked with maintaining international peace and security, and several international courts, including the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
However, despite these mechanisms, nations frequently defy international law.
In the ongoing Gaza crisis, Israel has faced criticism for disregarding international law by continuing its military actions against Palestinian civilians despite international calls for a ceasefire. The U.S. has compounded the issue by vetoing three UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping the violence, while Israel has ignored an ICJ ruling demanding sufficient humanitarian aid for Gaza. Furthermore, Israel has rejected the ICC’s request for arrest warrants for its top officials.
Russia’s actions in Ukraine offer another stark example. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Yet, in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and initiated military operations in eastern Ukraine, leading to condemnation at the UN Security Council, which Russia vetoed. In 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, again vetoing Security Council action. Subsequently, the ICJ ordered Russia to halt its invasion, but this order went unheeded.
These violations underscore a broader pattern of nations ignoring international law over many decades. The issue is not the absence of international law, but rather its inconsistent and selective enforcement. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) have often used their veto power to block UN actions intended to maintain international peace and security. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of the world’s nations do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and many major nations, including Russia, the United States, China, and India, have not joined the ICC.
Despite these challenges, international organizations have sometimes successfully resolved disputes. The UN Security Council has launched numerous peacekeeping missions, and the ICJ has delivered significant rulings, such as in Nicaragua v. United States, which contributed to the Central American Peace Accords, and in the Nuclear Tests case, which helped end nuclear testing in the Pacific. The ICC, operational since 2002, has convicted ten individuals of serious crimes and issued arrest warrants for prominent figures accused of war crimes, including Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Nonetheless, the persistence of aggressive wars and severe human rights violations highlights the difficulty of enforcing international law. To overcome national impunity and establish a genuine rules-based international order, it is essential to empower international organizations to enforce the laws that nations have agreed upon.
There are feasible steps to enhance global governance. Although abolishing the UN Security Council veto is challenging, invoking Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, which requires parties to a dispute to abstain from voting, could mitigate its negative effects. Additionally, 124 UN member states have endorsed a proposal to renounce the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and mass atrocities. The UN General Assembly has also used “Uniting for Peace” resolutions to act when the Security Council has been blocked.
Efforts to strengthen the international judicial system have gained traction. Campaigns like LAW Not War advocate for more nations to accept the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction, while the Coalition for the International Criminal Court urges all countries to ratify the ICC’s founding statute, thereby expanding its reach and reducing impunity.
National impunity is not an inevitable outcome, provided the international community takes decisive action. The question remains: will they enforce the rules they proclaim to uphold, or continue to pay lip service to a “rules-based international order” without real commitment?