The Demise of International Law
International law appears to bind only the weak nations but not the powerful, mighty ones. Afghanistan, Gaza, Guantanamo Bay, and targeted actions against foreign leaders all show how rules can be bypassed without consequence.
“We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age.”
This is not the rhetoric of an extremist fringe, but the statement of a leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, directed at another state. Nor is it an empty slogan -- it is being followed through on the ground. Yes, you guessed it right; I am referring to President Trump's latest remarks on Iran.
Anyone with a basic understanding of international law would recognize this as a clear violation of the rules of war -- some say potentially amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is, therefore, worth asking: What has become of international law?
Let us dig a little deeper. We know that law is the foundation of civilization. It is a system of rules and principles meant to regulate conduct, restrain power, resolve disputes, and promote justice. Law ensures that order prevails over chaos and that rights are protected not by strength, but by principle. Without a functioning legal system, society risks sliding into arbitrariness, where might is right.
International law extends this idea to relations among states. It is composed of treaties, conventions, protocols, and customary norms, which aim at preserving peace, regulating conflict, and protecting human rights and humanitarian principles. But unlike domestic systems, it has no central enforcement authority. It relies on states voluntarily undertaking the obligation and following the rules. That willingness is now in doubt.
The Promise of a Rules-Based Order and its Erosion
The modern system of international law took shape after World War II. The scale of destruction forced the world to try to put limits on power. Institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and later the International Criminal Court were created to uphold those limits. The Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out basic standards.
At the core were simple ideas: States are equal, borders should not be violated, force should not be used, and countries should not interfere in each other’s internal affairs. People should decide their own system of government. Even in war, there are limits -- civilians and prisoners must be protected.
For a time, these ideas carried weight. Even powerful countries felt the need to justify their actions in legal terms. There was, at least, some respect for the rules.
That respect is fading. This brings us to a big question: What does international law actually say about the use of force?
Under the United Nations Charter, the answer is clear. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This is, evidently, the cornerstone of the modern rules-based international order.
There are only two exceptions: Self-defence under Article 51, and action authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII. Outside these, the use of force is unlawful. Yet, this clarity is increasingly being ignored. Unilateral actions, coercive measures, arbitrary sanctions, and unprovoked wars are now shaping the international order. Legal equality among states is overshadowed by raw power.
We are moving toward a world where powerful states break the rules openly and unapologetically, often with carefully crafted, manipulated narratives, and with impunity. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a glaring example. A violation of sovereignty is presented as necessity or security. The lack of real consequences shows how weak enforcement has become. This is no longer an exception; it is becoming the pattern.
War Without Shame
Even the most basic limits of war are being ignored. International humanitarian law -- meant to limit suffering -- is losing its force. Recent conflicts, including those involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, as well as others, show a worrying trend. Civilian infrastructure -- homes, hospitals, schools, essential services -- is being hit again and again. These are not just buildings; they are what keep people alive. Their destruction raises serious concerns of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
What is striking is not only the scale of damage, but the lack of remorse. Such actions are defended publicly, sometimes even presented as achievements. The language of selfish interest replaces the language of law.
At the same time, criticism from states that have long claimed to champion international law and human rights is often selective or muted. Principles that were supposed to be universal now seem conditional -- applied selectively, invoked conveniently.
International law appears to bind only the weak nations but not the powerful, mighty ones. Afghanistan, Gaza, Guantanamo Bay, and targeted actions against foreign leaders all show how rules can be bypassed without consequence.
And it sets a dangerous precedent. If powerful states can act without consequence, others will follow. One day, the same logic may be used against weaker nations -- or even against those who once felt immune. The problem is not just legal; it is moral.
Today, leaders break rules without apology and most often without truth. Narratives are crafted to justify actions, and facts are adjusted to fit those narratives.
Worst still, many who are expected to speak out remain silent. For example, the Intelligentsia, civil society, and international institutions appear at times hesitant or selective in their criticism. Consequently, this silence allows violations to become normal. Amidst all these, the core principles of international legality: Sovereignty, non-intervention, and protection of civilians, are slowly losing their meaning.
The unfortunate result is a world drifting toward disorder. International law risks becoming something that exists only on paper. In practice, power decides.
This is the law of the jungle. In such a world, weaker states are exposed. Justice becomes uncertain. Trust breaks down.
The Choice Before Us
International law was never perfect. But it was an effort to place limits on the use of arbitrary force. Today, that effort is under strain -- not only from those who reject it, but from those who claim to defend it.
The real question now is simple: Does international law still matter?
If the current trend continues, it will slowly become irrelevant. And in its place will come a world where power speaks louder than principle. That is not a future to accept. It is a warning to take seriously -- before the decline becomes irreversible.
Md Mustafizur Rahman was a career diplomat serving the country for over three decades in various capacities, including as an Ambassador.
What's Your Reaction?
