The Struggle to Preserve a Fair International Law

24 Oct 2026

Tags: International Relations   Global Bodies   Global body reforms

Source: The Hindu

Context: Growing disregard for international law, particularly by powerful states and authoritarian leaders, is weakening global peace, human rights protection and accountability.

• Prohibition on the use of force: A fundamental principle of international law is being undermined by ongoing armed conflicts and violations of the UN Charter.
• Declining human rights compliance: Rising authoritarianism has weakened respect for international human rights law and contributed to violations involving war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• Shift in global discourse: The article contrasts the concept of a “rules-based international order” with international law, arguing that the former may be used to avoid explicit legal obligations. Former U.S. President Joe Biden frequently used the former expression, while Donald Trump asserted that his own morality guided him rather than international law.
• Normative decline: Disregard for established international norms has intensified in recent years, threatening the credibility and effectiveness of the international legal system.

Authoritarian International Law

• Concept: Legal scholar Tom Ginsburg uses the term authoritarian international law to describe the use or reshaping of international legal norms to protect authoritarian regimes and advance their interests. Rather than simply destroying international law, such regimes seek to redesign its operation.
• Historical contrast: The post-Second World War liberal international legal order, which expanded further after the Cold War, institutionalised civil, political and human rights, established international organisations and strengthened international courts and tribunals.
• Democratic limitations: The liberal order was not entirely democratic or free from double standards; nevertheless, it incorporated human rights protection, institutional cooperation and judicial accountability into its framework.

Key Features of Authoritarian International Law

• Regime survival over human rights: Authoritarian states prioritise the survival of ruling regimes over civil liberties, political rights, human rights and accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• Misuse of sovereignty: While developing countries have historically invoked sovereignty to shape international norms according to their developmental aspirations, authoritarian regimes increasingly use it to shield themselves from international scrutiny. The article cites Israel’s rejection of reports by UN human rights bodies on the grounds of interference in its sovereign affairs.
• Weak international organisations: Authoritarian states favour international organisations (IOs) with limited independent powers, allowing governments to retain greater control while minimising the authority delegated to these institutions.
• Preference for negotiation over adjudication: Such regimes tend to favour negotiations and quasi-judicial dispute-resolution mechanisms over binding third-party international adjudication. The backlash against the International Criminal Court (ICC) illustrates this trend.
• Changing institutional framework: As scholar Anne Applebaum argues, the operating system of the liberal international order is changing, with international institutions increasingly being shaped to serve regime interests.

Navi Pillay and the Struggle for Accountability

• Navi Pillay: The South African jurist chaired the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Israel condemned the Nobel Committee’s decision to honour her, describing the award as recognition of the “greatest lie” of the 21st century, according to the article.
• Alternative conception of international law: The approach represented by Pillay emphasises equality, fairness, accountability and the individual as a subject of international law, rather than using international law merely to extend a state’s influence beyond its borders.

Way Forward: Preserving a Fair International Legal Order

• Strengthen accountability: International courts and tribunals must be able to investigate violations and pursue accountability without political interference.
• Protect institutional independence: International organisations should possess sufficient autonomy to perform their mandates rather than remain entirely subject to the preferences of powerful member-states.
• Prevent the misuse of sovereignty: Sovereignty must not become a blanket justification for shielding human rights violations from international scrutiny.
• Mobilise non-state actors: Courts, civil society and academia must contribute to resisting authoritarian reinterpretations of international law and promoting a legal order grounded in justice and equality.
• Balance power with law: A fair international order requires consistent application of international norms, irrespective of a state's military, economic or political power.

Important Concepts for UPSC

• International law: Rules and principles governing relations among states and other recognised international legal actors; its sources include treaties, customary international law and general principles of law.
• UN Charter, Article 2(4): Prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, subject to recognised exceptions under international law.
• International human rights law (IHRL): Protects fundamental rights and freedoms; it applies in peacetime and continues to apply during armed conflict, alongside international humanitarian law.
• International humanitarian law (IHL): Regulates the conduct of armed conflict and protects persons who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 are its central instruments.
• International Criminal Court (ICC): A permanent court established by the Rome Statute (1998), which entered into force in 2002. It prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, subject to its jurisdiction.
• Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO): A Eurasian intergovernmental organisation established in 2001. Its institutional structure and emphasis on state sovereignty provide a relevant context for debates about the balance between state control and independent international institutions.