The Crisis of International Law: Collapse or Continuity?

Why breaches of the UN Charter do not signify the death of international law, and how legal norms continue to shape global governance.

Gopi

•February 28, 2026•6 mins read

International law may be under strain, but it remains the backbone of a rules-based global order

Not Started

1. Debate on the “Death” of International Law

Recent geopolitical tensions — including U.S.-Iran frictions, the Russia-Ukraine war (2022), Israel’s military actions in Gaza and West Asia, and alleged unilateral actions by major powers — have revived the argument that international law is collapsing. Some scholars argue that the world is entering a “norm-free” phase where power politics overrides legal principles.

This pessimistic view has gained traction due to visible breaches of core international norms and withdrawal of states from multilateral institutions. Observations about a “rupture” in the global order reflect anxiety about weakening multilateralism and rising unilateralism.

However, declaring the “death” of international law is analytically flawed. International law has historically survived repeated violations and power struggles. Norm erosion does not automatically imply institutional collapse.

For governance and global stability, legal frameworks remain indispensable. If prematurely dismissed, it may legitimise unilateralism and weaken accountability mechanisms further.

GS Linkages:

GS2: International relations, global governance
Essay: Rules-based order vs. power politics

2. Prohibition on Use of Force: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. It is one of the foundational norms of the post-1945 global order.

Despite repeated violations — including Cold War interventions and post-1990 conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria) — the norm has not disappeared. As early as 1970, Thomas Franck argued that Article 2(4) was effectively dead due to Cold War wars. Yet the norm endured.

The persistence of this principle indicates that violations do not negate legal existence. Instead, the norm continues to serve as a benchmark for legitimacy and accountability.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force…” — Article 2(4), UN Charter

The prohibition on force structures expectations of state behaviour. Without it, military aggression would become normalised, increasing insecurity and arms races globally.

Prelims Enrichment:

Article 2(4): Prohibition of threat/use of force
Article 51: Right to self-defence

3. Legal Justifications and the Logic of Compliance

Historically, even powerful states justified military actions using international legal language — often by expanding interpretations of “self-defence” under Article 51. This suggests that hegemonic powers recognised the need for normative legitimacy.

Legalisation of international relations compels states to explain actions within accepted frameworks. According to scholars like Monica Hakimi, the requirement of justification creates space for debate, contestation, and restraint.

Thus, international law operates not merely through enforcement, but through legitimacy and reputational costs.

When states feel compelled to justify actions legally, it preserves deliberative space and diplomatic negotiation. If states abandon even the language of law, normative erosion accelerates.

GS2 Relevance:

Role of norms in international order
Soft power and legitimacy in global politics

4. Emerging Challenge: Populist-Authoritarianism

The current phase differs from earlier norm violations. Today’s populist-authoritarian politics often display open disregard for legal justification. Strategic interests are asserted bluntly, with minimal normative framing.

This shift reduces the space for legal contestation and weakens institutional checks. The danger lies not merely in military action, but in erosion of the culture of legal reasoning.

Thus, the threat to international law stems less from isolated violations and more from systematic delegitimisation of multilateral norms.

If legal reasoning is replaced by overt power assertion, the rules-based order may gradually give way to transactional geopolitics, destabilising smaller and middle powers.

Implications for India:

India benefits from predictable multilateral norms (WTO, UNCLOS, climate frameworks)
Norm erosion may disproportionately hurt developing countries

5. International Law Beyond the UN Charter

Reducing international law to the UN Charter oversimplifies reality. Over eight decades, international law has expanded into diverse domains:

International trade (WTO framework)
Foreign investment law
Civil aviation
Maritime law (UNCLOS)
Outer space governance
Human rights regimes
Climate change agreements
Chemical and biological weapons conventions

This proliferation indicates deep legalisation of global interactions.

International law today governs routine cross-border transactions affecting millions of people daily. Its operation is often invisible but foundational.

Even if security norms face strain, economic, environmental, and technical regimes continue functioning. Ignoring this broader architecture distorts assessment of global order.

GS3 Linkages:

Climate governance
Maritime security
Global trade regimes

6. Continued Institutionalisation and Judicialisation

International law-making continues despite geopolitical tensions. Examples include:

Conclusion of free trade agreement negotiations (e.g., India–EU FTA)
High Seas Treaty (Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction)
Pandemic Agreement for global health preparedness

Additionally, the growth of international courts demonstrates judicialisation of global governance:

International Criminal Court (ICC)
Regional courts (e.g., African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights)

These institutions resolve disputes peacefully and reinforce accountability.

Institutional expansion indicates resilience. If such judicial and treaty frameworks weaken, dispute resolution may shift from courts to coercion.

Prelims Angle:

High Seas Treaty: Focus on marine biodiversity
ICC: Tries individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity

7. Silent Operation of International Law

Much of international law functions quietly, enabling:

Cross-border trade flows
International aviation
Digital communication networks
Global supply chains
Movement of goods and people

These frameworks support globalisation and development without attracting media attention.

The everyday functioning of these regimes demonstrates that norm compliance is far more common than norm violation.

International law’s invisibility should not be mistaken for irrelevance. Its breakdown would disrupt trade, mobility, and economic growth globally.

GS3 Relevance:

Global value chains
Economic interdependence
Development outcomes

8. Normative Value: Agency for the Powerless

International law provides smaller states and non-state actors a platform to question powerful states. It creates legal vocabulary for contestation and resistance.

Without such a framework, global politics would revert to pure power hierarchy. Law offers procedural equality, even when material power is unequal.

This normative structure strengthens global governance, human rights, and rule-based diplomacy.

If international law erodes, weaker states lose institutional leverage, increasing asymmetry in global governance.

Conclusion

International law is undoubtedly under strain, especially in the domain of use of force. However, repeated historical violations have not extinguished its normative force. Its expansion across trade, environment, health, and dispute resolution demonstrates resilience rather than collapse.

For countries like India and other middle powers, preservation of a rules-based international order is strategically vital. The challenge is not to abandon international law in moments of crisis, but to strengthen and reform it to adapt to emerging geopolitical realities.

A stable global order ultimately depends not on the absence of violations, but on continued commitment to shared rules and institutions.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter enshrines the prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations, except in cases of self-defence or when authorised by the UN Security Council. It represents the normative foundation of the post-1945 international order, aiming to prevent unilateral aggression and maintain global peace. The current debate on the ‘death’ of international law is largely triggered by repeated violations of this provision, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022), Israel’s military operations in Gaza, and U.S. interventions in West Asia and Venezuela.

However, breaches of Article 2(4) are not unprecedented. During the Cold War, conflicts such as the Soviet-Afghan War, the Falklands War, and later interventions in Iraq and Kosovo also tested this norm. Despite these violations, the principle has endured as the primary benchmark for legitimacy. Even powerful states have historically attempted to justify their actions under international legal doctrines like self-defence, indicating that the norm retains moral and political force. Thus, rather than being dead, Article 2(4) remains a contested but indispensable pillar of global order.

While military interventions violate international norms, the deeper threat arises when states stop recognising the need to justify their actions within a legal framework. In earlier decades, even hegemonic powers framed their interventions through legal arguments—such as expanding the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence after 9/11. This demonstrated an implicit acknowledgment of the authority of international law and preserved space for debate and contestation.

In contrast, the current populist-authoritarian climate is marked by brazenness and disregard for multilateral institutions. For instance, open assertions of resource interests, such as references to Venezuelan oil, reflect a shift from legal reasoning to overt power politics. This erosion of justificatory discourse weakens accountability mechanisms and undermines the normative fabric of global governance. Therefore, the threat lies not merely in violations, but in the decline of legal consciousness among powerful actors.

International law operates not only through dramatic Security Council debates but also through routine, institutionalised processes that structure global interactions. It governs diverse domains such as international trade (WTO agreements), foreign investment treaties, civil aviation (ICAO), maritime law (UNCLOS), climate change (Paris Agreement), and outer space regulations. These regimes facilitate predictable cooperation and reduce transaction costs for states.

Recent developments such as the High Seas Treaty for marine biodiversity and negotiations on a Pandemic Agreement illustrate ongoing law-making. Moreover, the proliferation of international courts—including the International Criminal Court and regional human rights courts—demonstrates the judicialisation of international relations. These institutions resolve disputes peacefully and reinforce norms. As Philippe Sands notes, much of international law works ‘silently,’ enabling global trade, travel, and communication, thereby shaping everyday life even when geopolitical headlines suggest disorder.

The claim that international law is in a ‘dark phase’ stems from visible norm violations, weakening multilateralism, and withdrawals from international organisations. The Russia-Ukraine war and the paralysis of the UN Security Council highlight structural limitations. Additionally, selective compliance by powerful states fuels perceptions of double standards, eroding trust among developing nations.

However, declaring the ‘death’ of international law is analytically flawed. Historically, the system has survived intense crises, including the Cold War. The persistence of legal argumentation, ongoing treaty negotiations, and the expansion of specialised regimes indicate resilience. International law also provides smaller states with a vocabulary of resistance and legitimacy. Thus, while enforcement deficits and geopolitical rivalries pose challenges, the system remains normatively relevant and institutionally embedded. The real task is reform and revitalisation rather than abandonment.

One prominent example is the continued negotiation of free trade agreements, such as the India–European Union FTA talks. These agreements are embedded in complex legal frameworks covering tariffs, intellectual property, environmental standards, and dispute settlement. They reflect confidence in rule-based economic engagement despite geopolitical tensions.

Another example is the adoption of the High Seas Treaty, aimed at conserving marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions. Similarly, efforts toward a Pandemic Agreement demonstrate collective legal responses to global health crises. The proliferation of international judicial bodies—from the International Criminal Court to regional human rights courts—further evidences the judicialisation of global governance. These developments show that international law is not confined to war and peace but permeates trade, environment, health, and human rights, functioning as an evolving social institution.

As a middle power, India’s strategy should combine principled multilateralism with strategic autonomy. First, India should consistently uphold the UN Charter principles, including sovereignty and peaceful dispute resolution, while advocating reforms in institutions like the UN Security Council to enhance representativeness. This strengthens legitimacy while addressing structural inequities.

Second, India can actively participate in shaping emerging legal regimes—such as digital governance, climate finance, and maritime security—thereby ensuring that global norms reflect developing-country perspectives. Its role in concluding trade agreements, participating in climate negotiations, and contributing to peacekeeping operations illustrates constructive engagement. By defending rule-based multilateralism while pursuing national interests, India can help prevent a descent into a norm-free world and reinforce a stable international order.