Mentor’s Comment

Debates over the resilience of international law reflect deeper tensions within the contemporary global order. While powerful states increasingly test legal limits, the institutional architecture of treaties, courts, and multilateral frameworks continues to regulate global conduct. The issue is not the disappearance of international law, but the contestation of its authority in an era of geopolitical realignment.

Why in the News?

Recent conflicts, including Russia-Ukraine war (2022), Israel’s military actions in Gaza, tensions in West Asia, and renewed U.S.-Iran hostility, have intensified debates over the effectiveness of international law. Repeated breaches of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force have raised concerns about the credibility of the post-1945 rules-based global order.

What is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter?

It prohibits UN Member States from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with UN purposes. This cornerstone of international law aims to prevent war, uphold sovereign equality, and promote peaceful dispute resolution. 

Key Aspects of the Prohibition

1. Scope: It prohibits the threat or use of armed force in international relations.
2. Protected Interests: Actions against a state’s territorial integrity (invasion, occupation) or political independence are strictly forbidden.
3. Forms of Force: Prohibited actions include direct military action, invasion, blockade, and indirect use of force through armed groups.
4. Cyber Operations: Cyber attacks that cause physical damage, injury, or death are considered violations of this article.
5. Exceptions: The prohibition is not absolute; lawful exceptions include authorization by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII) and inherent self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51).

Has the Prohibition on Use of Force Under Article 2(4) Lost Its Normative Authority?

1. Article 2(4) of UN Charter: Prohibits threat or use of force in international relations; remains binding on all UN member states.
2. Cold War Context: Despite proxy wars, the U.S. and USSR rarely abandoned legal justification frameworks.
3. Post-1990 Expansion of Self-Defence: U.S. expanded interpretation of anticipatory self-defence (1990s-2000s) in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
4. Contemporary Violations: Russia-Ukraine conflict (2022) and West Asian conflicts challenge Charter principles.
5. Continuity of Norms: Even powerful states frame actions within legal narratives, indicating normative pull of law.

Does Legalisation of International Relations Constrain Powerful States?

1. Legalisation Process: Institutional frameworks compel states to justify conduct within international law.
2. Domestic Anchoring: International norms resonate through domestic constitutional systems.
3. Agency of Weaker States: Legal frameworks enable smaller states to question powerful states in multilateral forums.
4. Judicialisation: Growth of international courts institutionalises dispute resolution.
5. Example: International Criminal Court prosecutions; African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights regional accountability mechanisms.

Is Contemporary Populist-Authoritarianism a Structural Threat to International Law?

1. Normative Rejection: Populist regimes openly question liberal constitutional order.
2. U.S. Withdrawal Trends: Exit from international agreements during the Trump presidency (e.g., Paris Agreement, WHO).
3. Geopolitical Assertion: Russia and others reject Western-led normative frameworks.
4. Shift from Justification to Defiance: Reduction in effort to legally justify actions.
5. Risk: Weakening compliance culture in multilateral institutions.

Beyond the UN Charter, How Extensive is International Law’s Regulatory Reach?

1. Trade Governance: Free Trade Agreements; India-EU negotiations ongoing.
2. Maritime Governance: High Seas Treaty (2023) strengthens marine biodiversity protection.
3. Global Health: Pandemic Agreement negotiations aim to enhance preparedness.
4. Climate Governance: Paris Agreement institutionalises nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
5. Arms Control: Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions regulate prohibited weapons.
6. Outer Space Law: Governs peaceful use and liability norms.

Do International Courts Demonstrate Institutional Resilience?

1. International Criminal Court (ICC): Prosecutes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity.
2. Regional Courts: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights strengthens regional human rights enforcement.
3. Dispute Settlement: WTO dispute mechanism institutionalises trade compliance (though Appellate Body crisis persists).
4. Peaceful Resolution: Courts reduce reliance on armed conflict.
5. Continuity: Judicial processes operate independent of media attention.

Does International Law Operate Quietly Despite Political Breaches?

1. Silent Functioning: Enables cross-border trade, aviation, communication networks.
2. Everyday Governance: Facilitates migration, shipping, investment flows.
3. Systemic Integration: Supports global supply chains.
4. Structural Embeddedness: Law operates beyond headline conflicts.
5. Institutional Persistence: Law-making processes continue despite geopolitical tensions.

Conclusion

International law faces visible strains due to geopolitical rivalries and selective compliance. However, its treaties, courts, and institutional frameworks continue to regulate trade, climate action, maritime governance, and human rights. The current phase reflects contestation and power politics, not the collapse of the rules-based international order.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now