The Guardian: Are we witnessing the death of international law?

International law faces unprecedented challenges, with recent events highlighting a significant erosion of its foundational principles and institutions. The good faith among nations, crucial for its effectiveness, appears to be diminishing rapidly.

The India-Pakistan water dispute exemplifies this decline; India's threat to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty raises concerns about equitable resource use and the enforceability of international agreements.

Experts like Ahmad Irfan Aslam note a 'scary realization' that traditional avenues for dispute resolution, such as the UN Security Council or ICJ, may no longer guarantee respect for their decisions.

The perceived ineffectiveness of international legal bodies is evident in the Israel-Palestine conflict, where legal proceedings, despite widespread participation, have yet to translate into tangible changes on the ground for affected civilians.

The past decade has seen key international institutions weakened by withdrawals, sanctions, and internal deadlocks, notably the US disengagement from various organizations and its sanctions against the ICC.

The very definition and purpose of international law are debated, with various analogies used to describe its elusive nature, from 'gravity' to a 'comedy' or 'tragedy,' reflecting its complex and often contradictory reality.

International criminal law, a younger branch, is increasingly viewed as a 'failed project.' Despite its aspirations to hold perpetrators accountable, it has yielded limited convictions, primarily in Africa, leading to accusations of neocolonial bias.

The ICC's struggles are compounded by powerful states, including the US, Russia, and Israel, refusing to recognize its jurisdiction, undermining its authority and the enforceability of its arrest warrants.

Critics argue that international law is too weak, selectively applied, and often serves as a tool for powerful states to justify their actions rather than to uphold justice, as seen in the 'Dahiya doctrine' example.

The invocation of international law by states to legitimize actions that violate its spirit contributes to cynicism. Russia's justification for invading Ukraine and Israel's actions in Gaza are prime examples.

Some scholars believe the discipline has lost touch with reality, with its language failing to capture the true essence of human suffering. This disconnect fuels a growing sense of disillusionment among practitioners.

Despite the current crisis, some optimists, like Ahmad Irfan Aslam, believe that international law is cyclical and will eventually re-emerge stronger, particularly in response to global crises like climate change.

The future of international law may see a shift in leadership, with China potentially filling the void left by the US. This could lead to an international legal system prioritizing state sovereignty over human rights.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of international law hinges not on its existence, but on the political will of states to adhere to its principles. The problem lies less with the law itself and more with the failure of international politics.