Is international law really dying? The question has become increasingly difficult to ignore. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, instability in West Asia, violence against civilians, and the inability of international institutions to respond effectively, have led many to conclude that international law is no longer relevant.
International law was premised on the idea that relations between states should be governed not merely by power, but by rules and legal principles built on consensus. When wars still take place, the effectiveness of the system is naturally exposed to scrutiny. However, it would be too early to write an obituary for international law.
‘It will prevail’
In July 2026, while addressing the International Law Commission recently, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres remarked that “international law is under pressure — but it will prevail”. The second half of the statement deserves as much attention as the first. International law undoubtedly faces serious challenges, but it continues to shape the conduct of states and remains the language through which international disputes are contested.
Paradoxically, wars actually demonstrate why international law still matters. Had it really become irrelevant, the states concerned would not bother to justify their actions by referring to international law. They invoke the UN Charter, sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-defence and international humanitarian law. Even states accused of violating international law rarely argue that the law itself is meaningless. Rather, they claim that their actions are consistent with it. A legal system under which states continue to justify their conduct cannot simply be described as dead.
International law scholars Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes argued that states often comply with international law not because they are threatened with sanctions, but because they are influenced by the dynamics created within the treaty regimes to which they belong. It is a pertinent observation even today. The significance of international law cannot be determined only by instances of violation; it also lies in providing a framework through which state conduct is assessed, disputes are addressed and cooperation is sustained. The difficulty is that compliance goes unnoticed whereas violations dominate headlines.
The quiet power of international law
The quiet accomplishments of international law are visible every day. Aircraft fly across international boundaries because states comply with international aviation regulations. Ships sail across seas because of international maritime law. Diplomacy functions because governments observe established legal norms. International trade, communications and travel continue because states honour thousands of international obligations. Even as armed conflicts continue to dominate headlines, states still negotiate multilateral legal agreements. Recent endeavours such as the High Seas Treaty, international efforts towards pandemic preparedness, and the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime demonstrate that states continue to rely on international law. International law also affects individuals. The moment a person crosses an international border, international law begins to matter. The recognition of passports, consular assistance, international air travel and the protection of refugees all depend upon international legal rules. We often notice international law only when it fails, but millions of people rely on it every day.
The continued relevance of international law is perhaps most evident in the way states seek peace, which is built through negotiations, commitments and legal arrangements. Whether these are described as peace agreements, ceasefire arrangements, diplomatic understandings or negotiated settlements, even adversarial states recognise the need for legal commitments that establish expectations and obligations for the future. India provides a good example in this respect. India’s experience with the Indus Waters Treaty demonstrates that even during periods of political discord, legal frameworks continue to provide a basis for engagement between states. That is precisely why international law remains indispensable for India and the wider Global South. The problems of climate change, pandemics, cyber-attacks, and economic instability cannot be addressed unilaterally by any state. They require cooperation, which in turn depends on agreed rules of conduct. A rules-based international order provides an opportunity to developing states to protect and advance their interests through negotiations rather than power alone.
There are imperfections
The reality is that international law has never been perfect. It has always coexisted with political realities and has frequently been condemned for reflecting unequal power structures. Recent conflicts have reinforced these criticisms, revealing the structural limitations within the UN Security Council and the broader international legal order. However, these are not reasons enough for the abandonment of the system altogether. No legal system can guarantee perfect compliance. Its significance lies in establishing the standards against which conduct can be judged. History suggests that crises have rarely marked the end of international law. More often, they have prompted its adaptation and renewal.
International law is under pressure, but it is far from dead. The greater danger is the growing belief that its violations prove its irrelevance, a conclusion that serves only those who prefer a world in which might makes right. As long as states continue to invoke, interpret and rely on international law, its obituary is being written far too soon.
Jyoti Singh is an advocate based in Delhi and a former legal consultant to the Legal and Treaties Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
